Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I had a Question down to the Secretary of State for War today. I received a notice from him that it would be transferred to the Secretary of State for Air, but it does not appear amongst the Questions for the Secretary of State for Air. I wonder if I can have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me, because it would appear to be some accident in transfer and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I cannot accept any responsibility in relation to that.

Later—

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was concerned about a Question which he thought had got lost in the post between my right hon. Friend and myself. I do not want any criticism to lie on our two Departments. I have made investigations and have discovered that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question is on the Order Paper as Question No. 64.

Mr. Paget: The notice I got was that it was transferred to the right hon. Gentleman. I see that is is now transferred to the Minister of Aviation. I am extremely sorry for the misunderstanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Regimental Sergeant Major Taylor

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for War why Regimental Sergeant Major Neville Dixon Taylor is to be

assigned to the Berlin British Garrison, and whether he is satisfied with the standard of discipline at this garrison.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Regimental Sergeant Major Taylor is going to Berlin in the normal course of positing. I am perfectly satisfied with the standard of discipline at that garrison.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the Secertary of State give an undertaking that this regimental sergeant major will not be allowed to make life any more unbearable than it should be for National Service men in the British garrison in Germany?

Mr. Profumo: I can certainly give an undertaking that life will not be made any more unbearable. It certainly is not unbearable at present. I have looked carefully into this case and I am satisfied that this regimental sergeant major has been misquoted in the national Press. Indeed, he made a broadcast on the B.B.C. a day or two later saying how much he regretted the misquotations.

Training Camp, Brancepeth

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Secretary of State for War what are his future plans for the now vacated military training camp at Brancepeth, County Durham.

Mr. Profumo: There is no further military requirement for this camp. Twenty-five acres, including the castle itself, is held under a lease which will be terminated at the end of this year. The remainder of the site, which is War Department freehold property, will be disposed of in accordance with the usual procedures.

Mr. Ainsley: As the right hon. Gentleman has no further use for the facilities available at this training camp, will he consult his right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour with a view to making use of the facilities now available in this areas where there is 5 per cent. permanent juvenile unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to make use of the available facilities by providing these young people with training to fit them for citizenship and a career in industry, rather than allow them to be unemployed?

Mr. Profumo: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, in so far as it is my responsibility. The future of the land must depend upon the views of the planning authority and the purchaser.

Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) which local authorities he has approached concerning the use of the site of the former Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton; and what meetings have so far been held; and
(2) what length of time has now elapsed since the decision to close the Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton; what schemes for the use of the site have been considered in that time; what area still remains for disposal; and what proposals he is now considering.

Mr. Profumo: I have approached the Staffordshire County Council, and a meeting with representatives of the county council, the Stone Urban and Rural District Councils, was held at Stafford last Friday, 16th March. It is now about five years since the decision was taken to close the factory. Industrial development, storage and afforestation have been uses proposed to me for the site; but the decision must rest with the statutory planning authorities. Seven hundred and sixteen acres out of 1,060 acres remain for disposal.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that a great deal of time has been wasted so far in considering various proposals for the use of a major portion of this site? Will he, therefore, go to work now with a real sense of urgency? Will he also bear in mind that for some time unemployment in north Staffordshire has been rather higher than the national average and it is vitally important that a portion of this site should be used to provide more diversity of industry?

Mr. Profumo: I recognise that it seems a long time, but I think the hon. Gentleman understands that, although the decision was taken to close the factory, it took another year before it was closed. Then we had to dispose of explosive materials, and so on. Therefore, it is not as bad as it might seem

from the figures, but I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I will continue to pursue this with the utmost vigour.

King's Own Scottish Borderers (Berwick-on-Tweed Depot)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken to deal with the conditions under which four men of the Depot, 1st Royal Scots King's Own Scottish Borderers, Berwick-on-Tweed, Northumberland, are awaiting trial in the guardroom, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool.

Mr. Profumo: Action had already been taken by the unit concerned to prevent overcrowding before the hon, Lady sent me this complaint. Additional accommodation for prisoners was found, and the number of men in the guardroom cell limited to four.

Mrs. Braddock: Should it have been necessary for men to have to write a letter giving details of the shocking conditions they had to put up with while awaiting trial, if they were correct? Should not something be done to ensure that there is adequate and decent accommodation for men awaiting trial for some misdemeanour, instead of the sort of accommodation these men described in their letter to me?

Mr. Profumo: I understand the hon. Lady's concern about this matter, but there are always two sides to a case of this sort. A certain amount of the discomfort and the unpleasant conditions were brought upon those being held in custody by themselves. Normally, if they wanted to leave the cell at night they were escorted a few hundred yards, but there had been some escapes. One of the prisoners who wrote to the hon. Lady had himself been released and had gone absent. Therefore, we had to take special measures, which account for the problems the hon. Lady has drawn to my attention. I assure her, as I have in my Answer, that this is not general.

National Service Men

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men have so far been compelled


to serve an additional six months; how many are married; and how many are married with children.

Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: I am delighted to hear that Answer. Does this mean that, as should be the case, National Service men with wives, whether they have children or not, are being almost automatically exempted from the further six months call-up? If so, the right hon. Gentleman will deserve considerable thanks and praise.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. He asks me in his Question "how many National Service men have so far been" retained. As I have explained on numerous occasions, no National Service men will be retained until April, although a number of those who are serving in B.A.O.R. have already been warned.

Mr. Allaun: In that case, how many have been given notice that they are to be retained?

Mr. Profumo: That is another question, but I am perfectly prepared to answer it. The answer is 3,628 so far.

Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the position of reservists serving with the British Army of the Rhine. Can he say anything about the position of reservists other than those who are in the B.A.O.R.?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. National Service men who will be serving in B.A.O.R. on 1st April or who are due to move there must consider themselves liable to be retained. I shall not need to retain any other National Service man whose release date falls before 1st August.

Mr. Wade: In view of the anxiety felt by a number of wives of married National Service men, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that as much notice as possible will be given so that they will be relieved of uncertainty?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. I have been making every possible effort to this end, including having warned all those people before the Bill became law. We will continue to do this. I am happy to tell the House that already the appeals system has started to work.

Mr. Allaun: As the right hon. Gentleman has the information there, can he tell us how many of the 3,600-odd are married men?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot without difficulty give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question, but the total number of married men serving in B.A.O.R. at the end of January was 3,233, out of a total of about 9,000 National Service men. That is the nearest figure I can give him.

Recruitment

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the policy and progress of recruitment for the Army outside the British Isles.

Mr. Profumo: Arrangements already exist by which recruits can enlist in the Army in overseas Commands. In addition, last year I organised recruiting in certain overseas territories. As a result we got 449 recruits. During the coming year, I intend to press ahead with this form of recruiting. There are teams at present in action in the Seychelles and in Barbados.

Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered Jamaica and Africa?

Mr. Profumo: I have considered Jamaica. We have recruited some people from Jamaica, but Jamaica now wants to recruit its own police and some soldiers for itself. Therefore, for the time being I have moved the recruiting team from Jamaica. This is one of the problems which we find when we try to recruit in any foreign territory. We want the best men, but we must not poach on local requirements, whether they are African, Fijian or in any Commonwealth or colonial country. We are very careful about this. I have the problem in mind, but we have to proceed with caution.

Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the ex-soldiers from the King's African Rifles, many of whom might be very interested?

Mr. Profumo: Any overseas station—Kenya is one of them—is a place at which anybody who wishes to enlist in the British Army can do so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is compelled to go to the Fijian Islands to get recruits only because the average British young man does not see any reality at all in the Army in modern times in the nuclear age? Does not the Secretary of State think that it is deplorable that he has to go to the Seychelles and the Fijian Islands and all these other places when he cannot get the recruits at home?

Mr. Profumo: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the experience in his own constituency, things are looking up.

Mr. Hughes: No, they are not.

Mr. Profumo: Yes, they are. It would be wrong for us to deny people who are members of the Commonwealth, though they do not live in this country, the chance to serve their Queen in the British Army.

Mr. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of volunteers who have joined the Army, the number who have not exercised an option to complete an engagement, and the number who have extended their service, since the publication of the Government's acceptance of the Grigg Committee's recommendation on pay.

Mr. Profumo: Since November, 1958, when Command Paper No. 570 was published, 82,958 men have joined the Army as volunteers. Since the same date, 31,205 men have not exercised an option to complete an engagement, and 39,255 have extended their service.

Mr. Morris: What evidence has the Secretary of State that these soldiers have accepted the Government's recent unilateral breach of contract with them on pay? How has the Secretary of State acquainted himself with the views of these soldiers? For example, has any private soldier been asked whether he is ready to make a sacrifice of over £20 to the Government?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot pretend that I have gone all round the Army asking soldiers whether they agree with hon. Members opposite. That would be very foolish indeed. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the tentative recruiting results for the last fortnight—that is to say, since the announcement was made—do not reflect the dismay which hon. Members opposite affected to feel. They are

about 25 per cent. up on last year and almost 40 per cent. up on 1960.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman is not asked about what we think. It is a question of what these men think. They were engaged upon a certain basis. The Minister of Defence informed us that they would prefer not to have this additional pay to which they are entitled. We want to know whether they have been asked if they agree with the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Profumo: I have given figures which certainly prove to the House that what hon. Members opposite are suggesting is not considered to be the case by soldiers in the Army or indeed by those coming forward as recruits. I believe that the Army as a whole has accepted this decision in the spirit in which it has been taken.

Married Quarters

Mr. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of persons who have applied for married quarters for whom there are none available.

Mr. Profumo: There are at present about 15,000 soldiers for whom we can not provide married quarters. However, two-thirds of these have their families with them in other accommodation.

Mr. Morris: In view of the disappointing results last year, when only £1 million was spent on housing, etc., compared with the £3 million planned, when do the Government hope to make up for this lost ground? In which year do the Government expect that every soldier who is entitled to a married quarter and wants one will be able to get one?

Mr. Profumo: The last part of the question would be very difficult for even the hon. Gentleman, with his mathematical mind, to answer. It depends on how many new soldiers come in, how many of them marry, and at what age. I cannot throw estimates across the House of Commons unless I know them to be in some measure accurate. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this year, taking this country and B.A.O.R. alone, we shall be building married quarters at the rate of 400 per week.*

* Note: See correction in first few lines of col. 370.

Headquarters and Staffs

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War what plans he has for curtailment of headquarters and staff when National Service is terminated and the target of regular troops is reached.

Mr. Profumo: I am always looking for ways and means of reducing headquarters and staffs. I have not waited for the end of National Service. In a year's time, the strength of the War Office (excluding departments subsequently transferred from the Ministry of Supply) will have been reduced by a quarter since 1956, when plans for the all-regular Army were formed. My right hon. Friend explained in the Defence White Paper that a unified Command will be set up in the Far East, and that in Cyprus the Army Headquarters will be reduced in size.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not time for another look to follow that of 1956? As the right hon. Gentleman will have under his administration no more than, say, 180,000 troops, is it not desirable to adjust the proportion as between those at the top and those not near the top?

Mr. Profumo: It certainly is desirable, and, as I have said, we are trying to reduce the number as quickly as we possibly can, but one cannot evaluate the size of the Army against the number of administrative personnel. In fact, in any country the administrative requirements of an Army in peacetime, in a democracy, require certain activities which are not wholly related to the numbers in the Army. But we are pressing ahead with this.

Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate the difficulties which present themselves to the right hon. Gentleman, but obviously if the number of troops is reduced in any particular base or garrison, or even in B.A.O.R., we cannot retain the same number of generals and major generals and all the rest of them. We shall be very disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman does not adjust the proporton.

Mr. Profumo: I was addressing myself not wholly to generals but to administrative staff as such. I know only too well of the right hon. Gentleman's pertinacity in trying to get rid of the tail. We are

doing all we can, and it seems to me that where the heads fall the branches wither.
Incidentally, if through a slip of the tongue I said "400 a week" earlier, I meant that we are building 400 a month. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Nevertheless, this is very big indeed.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this particular moment we are more interested in heads than tails? At present, as we have less than half the Army to command, how many fewer generals have we got to command it?

Mr. Profumo: I have tried to answer the question on the Order Paper. If the hon. and learned Member for Northampton will put down another question I will certainly try to give him the information. I told the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that we are trying our best to cut down the administrative element of the Army, and I think from what I have said that I have proved that we are trying to do this.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Sunspots

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is examining the possibility that the 87,000-mile trail of sunspots observed on 26th February has been responsible for electrical disturbances in the upper atmosphere leading to the exceptionally violent gales and high tides in the northern hemisphere on 5th, 6th and 7th March; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): It is known that sun-spots may be associated with electrical disturbances in the high atmosphere, but there is no certain evidence that recent gales and high tides were connected with such events.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I put down a Question at the beginning of March asking him whether he expected very bad weather as a result of the sunspots at the end of February? In fact, there were very bad floods in the West Country and in Massachusetts in the first week of March. If it were established that there was a tie up between these sunspots and


the bad weather it would be most useful. Farmers and people living on the coast would know when they could expect bad weather or high tides at certain times.

Mr. Amery: There have been more than the average number of severe gales this winter.

Mr. Manuel: Orpington.

Mr. Amery: Some occurred before and some since the recent burst of sun-spots, but we know of no reason for supposing that the events were directly connected with one another. These sun-spots release ultra-violet rays and corpuscular radiation, but as far as we know they have no effect on the weather.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if sunspots are associated with some of the recent election results?

Mr. Amery: Again, this is a question of saying what is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Cranwell Cadets (Scottish Applicants)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to encourage an increased number of applicants from Scottish schools for places as cadets at Cranwell.

Mr. Amery: We have school liaison officers based in Scotland and we advertise in newspapers and school magazines there. Headmasters and careers masters of Scottish schools are invited to visit Cranwell. We also publicise the Royal Air Force scholarship scheme which guarantees entry to the college.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the Minister for that reply and hope that it will get some publicity among Scottish schools. Is he aware that young Scots are getting a lot less than their fair share of these courses of future leadership in the Air Force, although when they are persuaded to apply they seem to do remarkably well? Will the right hon. Gentleman make vigorous efforts to ensure that the officers of the Air Force are evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Amery: I would certainly welcome more cadets from Scotland, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the position.

Pay Review (Expenditure)

Mr. Mulley: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the additional expenditure estimated in the financial year 1962–63 from the pay review for Royal Air Force personnel.

Mr. Amery: Between £4½ million and £5 million.

Mr. Mulley: Does this also mean that that is the amount by which the Government are falling short of their undertaking to review pay every two years? In the interests both of the Government's integrity and the morale of the Service, will not the right hon. Gentleman make representations before 1st April to see if this cannot be reviewed?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I think that the Service has accepted the award in the spirit in which it was made; not with enthusiasm but with understanding.

Mr. Mulley: What was that spirit?

Mr. Amery: In the realisation that the economic situation facing the country was a difficult one.

Fighter Squadrons Nos. 25 and 29

Mr. Mulley: asked the Secretary of State for Air why the commitments of Fighter Squadrons Nos. 25 and 29 have been interchanged; and what was the cost of the resultant changes in the navigational and other equipment in the Javelin aircraft concerned.

Mr. Amery: The commitments of Fighter Squadrons 25 and 29 have not been interchanged.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Universities

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state for each of the last three years the number of senior secondary school pupils gaining leaving certificates with qualifications necessary for entry to the universities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): University entrance requirements involve a great many possible combinations of passes in particular subjects and groups


of subjects and I regret that the information asked for cannot be obtained from the statistics of the Certificate Examination.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the number of senior secondary pupils with qualifications for entry has been increasing for some years back? Is it not crass folly on the part of the Government to cut back on university expenditure at a time when the nation needs more engineers, scientists and teachers? In view of this, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to procure and obtain a fifth university in Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that that goes a great deal wider than the original Question.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman will get a chance in Question No. 40.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: There is a great deal of public interest in this matter. Will not the hon. Gentleman try to make sure that he assesses which of the people have the requisite qualifications to obtain a certificate of fitness from the Universities Entrance Board, even if it takes a certain amount of work to do so? Would that not be worth while doing?

Mr. Brooman-White: I entirely agree. There are other Questions on the Order Paper relating to this point and we want all the relevant information we can get. It is simply a question of the best techniques of getting that information.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to ensure that the statistical reports submitted to him under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, contain details of the number of students with certificates of fitness who have been refused admission.

Mr. Brooman-White: I understand that the universities do not have this information, firstly because there are many duplicate applications, and secondly because special qualifications are required for each faculty and some applicants may be refused for lack of these before it is know whether they will get the certificate of fitness. But, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary

to the Treasury indicated on 8th March, the question is being further examined.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a growing feeling throughout the country that there should be a greater measure of public accountability by the university authorities so that the community and Parliament are better able to assess the situation? Can he confirm that the Government themselves were not adequately informed more than a year ago when they embarked on the present quite inadequate programme of university building?

Mr. Brooman-White: University building is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are most anxious to get all the information we can with a bearing on the problem of university entrance.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is it not scandalous that the Minister should be seeking to plan senior secondary education without having any proper idea of the number of qualified pupils from Scottish schools able to obtain places in Scottish universities?

Mr. Brooman-White: As I said, in this extremely complex matter of qualifications and entrance requirements we are trying to clarify the position as far as we can.

Miss Herbison: Questions such as these have been asked for years. As so many young people who are fit to enter a university are being denied a place in a Scottish university, it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary to tell us that the Government are still making efforts to find out this information. When does he hope to have this information, which is of such great importance?

Mr. Brooman-White: If the hon. Lady will look at recent answers given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, she will see some of the steps which are being taken.

Electricity Boards (Capital Requirements)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the South of Scotland


Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on the proposal in Command Paper No. 1337. The Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, that the boards should finance a larger percentage of their capital requirements from revenue; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement next week.

Mr. Millan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the South of Scotland Electricity Board has already imposed price increases of rather more than 10 per cent. and that the Hydro Electric Board has also given notice that it will be imposing price increases? When this statement is made, will it include an estimate of the extent to which these price increases are attributable to direct Government policy, so that at least we can know where responsibility lies, particularly in this period when on the one hand the Government are putting up prices and on the other trying to impose a pay pause?

Mr. Brooman-White: It would not be wise for me to anticipate the statement. We will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that when this statement is made it will include all the nationalised industries, since not only the electricity but the gas boards are putting up prices? Is he aware that there is a feeling in the country that these increases are entirely due to the policy enunciated in the White Paper, and that it seems to be a contradiction in the Government's policy that they should be appealing for wage restraint at the same time as they are deliberately putting up prices?

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend's statement will be concerned with electricity.

Hospital Houses (Rents)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what the average annual rents for 3, 4 and 5 apartment houses, respectively, will be when the new policy on hospital rents has taken full effect.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): These figures will not be known until late this year when the Treasury Valuer has dealt with all the representations put to him about the valuation of hospital houses.

Mr. Millan: In the meantime, will the hon. Gentleman stop making comparisons with the English figures? As on the whole the houses in Scotland are smaller than those in England, are not these comparisons quite misleading? Is he aware that there is some evidence that in many ways the rents of Scottish hospital houses are rather higher than the English figures?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The valuation figures which we have to date indicate that the Scottish figures will be lower.

Water Supplies, Central Scotland

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the regionalisation of water supplies for central Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave him on 14th February.

Mr. Baxter: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate that that was not a very satisfactory reply? As two new towns are being built in this area, one at Cumbernauld and one at Livingstone, so that there is a need for some regionalised scheme of water from Glasgow and Edinburgh, is it not time that the hon. Gentleman was making some effort to bring about such a scheme of regionalisation? Is he also aware that the most progressive local authorities in the area are in favour of the establishment of such a scheme?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend's answer was unsatisfactory. He said that the Scottish Water Advisory Committee had been reconstituted in order to deal with this very problem.

Glasgow-Gretna Road

Mr. Lilley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on the reconstruction of the Glasgow-Gretna road, A.74.

Mr. Brooman-White: Five reconstructed lengths are now open to traffic and there are now 30 miles in all of dual carriageway on this 84 mile route. Two other schemes are in progress and up to schedule, and three more should have started by the end of the financial year, making a further 20 miles of dual carriageway under construction. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to publish a draft Special Road Scheme which when made will enable him to construct as a motorway the Hamilton by-pass from Larkhall to Mount Vernon on the outskirts of Glasgow.

Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that I travelled this road very recently and was highly impressed by the speed and quality of the work done under very difficult circumstances and that I should like to commend everybody concerned?

Mr. Brooman-White: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one visitor to this road called it a comic opera? Is it not true that the performance on this road has been perfectly scandalous? Is it not time that the Government got on with it and completed the job?

Mr. Brooman-White: I am very glad that, although costs and standards are higher than was originally envisaged, we are keeping up to the schedule announced in 1956. I am also very satisfied that our progress has been substantially better than hon. Members opposite thought that it could be when we last debated the subject.

Kincardine Bridge-Kinross Road

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make the Kincardine Bridge-Kinross road a trunk road.

Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, Sir. With the concurrence of the county councils concerned my right hon. Friend has published in draft, and will shortly make, an Order trunking this route, A.977, which is of growing importance to commercial traffic, and detrunking A.91 from Stirling to Milnathort, which is declining. As part of this exchange, he is also trunking A.905 in Stirlingshire, which links A.9 at Salmon Inn with the

South approach to Kincardine Bridge, A.876.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he now apply the same principles to the road from Perth to Stonehaven and to the road from Dundee to Stonehaven and make the former, which carries all the heavy traffic from Aberdeen to Glasgow, a trunk road and de-trunk the coast road from Dundee?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are always ready to consider proposals of this kind on their merits.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman pay no attention to the latter part of his hon. Friend's suggestion? Will he bear in mind that when the Tay Road Bridge is completed, which we hope will be soon, we shall need a major trunk road up the coast to Aberdeen?

Mr. Brooman-White: I said that we would consider schemes on their merits. I did not make any suggestion about the relative merits.

Retired Police Officers (Pensions)

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for increasing the pensions of retired police officers in Scotland.

Mr. Brooman-White: Retired police officers, like other public service pensioners, receive the benefit of any increase to which they may be entitled under the Pensions (Increase) Acts. Legislation in this field is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) last week, does not consider that the time has come for a further increase.

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the older pensioners are having to seek help from the National Assistance Board? Would he not agree that that is a shocking state of affairs for men who have had to contribute 5 per cent. of their salary to their pension? Would he not agree that his reply today will do nothing to help these pensioners? Will he not get on with the job and recognise that they are having a very difficult time?

Mr. Brooman-White: This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Police pensioners, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, are in exactly the same position as ail public service pensioners.

Mr. Robertson: I beg to give notice that, in view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Balgy Gap Road, Wester Ross

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the new road being built between Torridon and Shieldaig, known as the Balgy Gap road, in Wester Ross is to be constructed as an 11-foot carriageway with passing places; and if he will have it constructed as an 18-foot carriageway instead.

Mr. Brooman-White: The carriageway being constructed is 11 ft. wide with passing places but, as my hon. Friend will know from my right hon. Friend's letter of 12th March, the earthworks required to enable this to be widened to 18 ft. when traffic justifies this are being done at the same time.

Mr. MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? This road will have to be widened within the next two or three years. It will be a very important tourist road. The price now, with all the men and equipment on the spot, would be £11,000. In two or three years' time it would be £35,000 to £40,000. Surely this is completely false economy.

Mr. Brooman-White: To go ahead with the scheme now, which is not of top priority, would correspondingly reduce work on other new Highland roads.

Mr. Hoy: Will not the Under-Secretary of State face up to this problem? Surely it is nonsense at this time to be building roads 11 ft. wide and making preparations for widening them two years later. This is complete nonsense and the most expensive way of building roads. Why does not the hon. Gentleman take his courage in his hands and do the road properly?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that it will be necessary to widen the road in two years.

Hydro-Electric Board (Flood Warnings)

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a general direction to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to provide a warning system when there is danger of excessive flooding taking place at the lower points of their schemes.

Mr. Brooman-White: No, Sir. But my right hon. Friend is asking the Board to consider what more can be done to inform the police of potential danger.

Mr. MacLeod: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the recent extensive flooding in the Conon Valley a farmer lost £2,000 worth of stock and a crofter over £1,000 worth of stock in the lower regions? They assure me that if warning had been given they would at least have had some chance of getting that stock out of the way.

Mr. Brooman-White: I am aware of the difficulties and losses which occurred, but the right pattern is for the Board and the chief constables concerned to discuss the best way of giving information in future cases of danger.

Mr. MacLeod: Do I take it from that reply that no warning is given when there is extensive flooding in the upper regions of these schemes to people in the lower regions?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are asking the Board to consider what future information it can make available to the police, and it will be the responsibility of the police to convey the warnings.

Mr. MacLeod: Surely some information should be given to the people in the region, not to the police.

Mr. Brooman-White: It is for the police, not for the Board, to disseminate the information.

Edenhall Hospital

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the future of Edenhall Hospital.

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider replacing the present temporary buildings at Edenhall Hospital with modern permanent buildings to meet the needs of the surrounding areas.

Mr. Galbraith: The Regional Hospital Board intends that Edenhall Hospital should continue to provide a priority hospital service for war pensioners, and also facilities for paraplegic and orthopaedic patients generally. As regards replacement of the present temporary buildings, I am afraid that the resources available are committed to other developments in the region of higher priority.

Mr. Willis: If this hospital is to play its proper part in the National Health Service, will not there have to be considerable expenditure on modernisation and replacing temporary accommodation? If this large expenditure is required, could not the request of local authorities in the area that provision be made to meet the general needs of Musselburgh and Midlothian be considered?

Mr. Galbraith: These points are all very much in the mind of the Board, but, unfortunately, its priorities at the moment do not allow it to do any work on this hospital.

Mr. Hill: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply. We know that part of this hospital has been reserved for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I wish to raise the same point as I have raised on a previous occasion. There is a ward in the hospital which is never used because it is reserved for officers who are likely to go there for treatment. One officer went into a general ward. Something should be done about the present temporary buildings. Where does this hospital come on the priorities list?

Mr. Galbraith: It does not come on the list in the immediate future.

Belvedere Hospital, Glasgow

Mr. J. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the maternity unit at Belvedere Hospital, Glasgow, was first due to be opened; and when it is now expected to be opened.

Mr. Galbraith: The opening planned for last summer had to be deferred mainly because of difficulty in recruiting nursing staff for the hospital as a general practitioner unit. It has therefore been reorganised as a part specialist and part general practitioner unit, and since last

month has been coming into use gradually as the recruitment of nurses proceeds.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply.

Welfare Foods

Mr. Archie C. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is now taking to assess the health consequences of the 75 per cent. decrease in the consumption of welfare foods since the prices of these foods were increased.

Mr. Galbraith: Arrangements have been made for hospital paediatricians to keep watch for any conditions among children that might be linked with inadequate vitamin intake. Periodical reports are also obtained from medical officers of health of selected areas, in collaboration with obstetricians, on the health of expectant and nursing mothers.

Mr. Manuel: Can the Under-Secretary of State say what areas are selected? Our particularly bad housing conditions in Scotland and the unhealthy environment which many of our children have to grow up in make it all the more necessary that these welfare foods should be retained. Does not the hon. Gentleman think it very bad that the Secretary of State should automatically follow the Minister of Health's economy campaign in cutting out foods for these weaker sections of our community?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not a trier. This is the second Question on this matter which he has tabled, as well as having an Adjournment debate. Therefore, I do not think that I shall go into the wider aspect of it. The areas which have been selected are the four main cities, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have had a report on this matter from the Medical Officer of Health for Ayrshire, the county in which he lives? The medical officer of health and the health committee are already strongly protesting against this. Will not the hon. Gentleman take that into consideration?

Mr. Galbraith: We have already had an Adjournment debate on that subject.

Hospitals (Cigarettes)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cigarettes are sold each week in Scottish hospitals.

Mr. Galbraith: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Woodburn: While this is perhaps the last time that anyone would wish to deny patients the solace of cigarettes, is the Under-Secretary of State aware that there seem to be about 1 million cigarettes consumed a week in Scottish hospitals? Since doctors are telling the rest of the population to stop smoking, would it not be a good idea if they showed an example and stopped smoking themselves?

Mr. Galbraith: The Government's policy with regard to the danger to health from smoking is to make the position clear to the public. In addition, we are considering all the suggestions made in the recent Report of the Royal College of Physicians. I should not like to go further than that at the moment.

Schools, Lanarkshire

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking or proposes to take to aid Lanarkshire Education Authority to provide both schools in their housing development areas and extensions and improvements to senior and junior secondary schools.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend will shortly authorise the investment for 1962–63 required to enable the education authority to proceed with the school building programme which it proposes to start in that year.

Miss Herbison: Will this programme cover every item of the scheme put forward to the Secretary of State? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that already the education authority in Lanarkshire is spending £3 million more of the ratepayers' money than it is getting from the general grant? Is he further aware that some of the schools in Lanarkshire are disgraceful places in which to educate children?

Mr. Brooman-White: I am aware of the hold-up which occurred in new starts

in Lanarkshire, which we all regret. If the council puts forward a slightly more ambitious scheme than the one it has submitted, we would be prepared to consider it. But the scheme at present before us will shortly be approved.

Miss Herbison: The scheme was given to the Department of Education some time ago. It does not even meet all the requirements in the circular. Will that scheme be operated by help from the Government?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are shortly to approve that scheme. If any further proposals come from Lanarkshire, we will be prepared to consider them.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present scheme concentrates two-thirds of all building in one town, namely, in the new town of East Kilbride? While we have nothing against East Kilbride getting the schools which it certainly requires, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one-third of an already reduced school building programme is hopelessly inadequate to meet the needs of Lanarkshire?

Mr. Brooman-White: What we are doing is accepting the scheme which Lanarkshire education authority has put forward.

Parking Meters, Edinburgh

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, before approving the installation of parking meters in George Street, Charlotte Square and St. Andrew Square, Edinburgh, he took full account of the shortage of off-street parking facilities at present available in the city; and what study he made of other possible solutions to the problem of long-term parking.

Mr. Brooman-White: These proposals by Edinburgh Corporation were the subject of a public inquiry at which the facilities for off-street parking and other ways of dealing with the problem of long-term parking were discussed. After considering the evidence, the Reporter's conclusion was that the Corporation's proposals are justified; and my right hon. Friend saw no reason not to accept it.

Mr. Stodart: Is it not the case that this was the first application of its kind


either for Edinburgh or for any city in Scotland, and as George Street and Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, have particular architectural merits, would it not have been a worth-while experiment to have tried either the disc scheme from Paris or the scheme that has been operating successfully in Leicester, which would have made it unnecessary to erect parking meters on these squares?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think my hon. Friend will realise that this is a matter for the highway authority. The Edinburgh Corporation put forward a scheme and, after an inquiry which saw no reason for not accepting it as satisfactory, we accepted that scheme.

Mr. MacArthur: Nevertheless, is the Minister aware how ugly parking meters are and the extent to which they will spoil the architectural beauty of Edinburgh? Is it not a fact that the results of the Leicester traffic wardens scheme were available after the Edinburgh inquiry took place? Will he study the results of the inquiry to see whether it is possible to replace the ugly parking meters now proposed for Edinburgh with a scheme of that kind?

Mr. Brooman-White: That is for the corporation and not for us to consider in the first instance.

Higher Education

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the headmasters of Scottish senior secondary schools regarding their difficulties in finding places in higher education for suitably qualified pupils.

Mr. Brooman-White: No, Sir. I think that this is best dealt with in the context of the present inquiries by Lord Robbing' committee to which I understand the Headmasters' Association has submitted both written and oral evidence.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that it may be 1964 before we have the report of the Lord Robbins' Committee and in the meantime there is increasing concern among Scottish teachers and parents concerning the number of children who obtain certificates of fitness to enter universities but are unable to find places? Is he also aware that the universities have utterly failed their responsibilities

to the nation in giving information about this, and will he not therefore seek information from his end where his own responsibility lies?

Mr. Brooman-White: I have answered this Question before, making it clear that the university aspect of it is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Concerning our own responsibility, we most certainly will take any action we consider appropriate to deal with immediate problems as they arise. The Committee has been investigating the long-term problem for some time and we do not want to duplicate its work.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern about future industrial prospects in Fife, especially consequent on the announcement of the imminent closure of the Rothes colliery; and whether he will undertake immediate consultations with the Fife County Council in order to find means of alleviating the problem.

Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, Sir. I fully understand the apprehension which is felt in Fife about the future employment situation there. With regard to consultation, the Departments concerned are already in close touch with the County Council on this matter. Plans for the expansion of existing industry at Glenrothes are likely to create 200 additional jobs in this area in the near future. Furthermore, the New Town Corporation's negotiations with prospective industrial developers for a number of other new projects are at an advanced stage.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that even assuming these projects come to fruition, which must be problematical, in the meanwhile they will not bring jobs before the Rothes pit closes and that meanwhile men will have moved out of the area? In view of these circumstances and the tremendous psychological, social and economic implications involved in the early closure of this pit,


will he impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek to bring pressure in higher circles in the Cabinet to get the extra £5 million necessary to go to the deeper seams in this colliery, so that we may try to salvage something out of the losses already incurred there?

Mr. Brooman-White: I cannot comment on the latter point. So far as the introduction of industry to the area is concerned, we shall certainly do all that we can to speed up developments.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware of the growing apprehension among all sections of the community in Fife arising out of the closure of the Rothes colliery—apprehension among people of different political persuasions regarding the future employment prospects, particularly for young people in Fife? Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend to make representations at Cabinet level to introduce tax concessions to prospective industrialists coming into Fife and so prevent it becoming a depressed area?

Mr. Brooman-White: That is a very much wider question.

Glenochil Pit (Closure)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, arising from the closing of Glenochil pit, families who, in accordance with Government policy, left their homes to man the new pit and were rehoused by the Scottish Special Housing Association and local authorities will be involved in heavy financial loss; and what steps he is taking to relieve them of housing and other liabilities assumed on the basis of Government assurances of employment in the area.

Mr. Galbraith: The Government Departments concerned are in close touch with the National Coal Board about the redeployment of manpower from this pit, and if necessary will be consulting with the local authorities about the possibilities of alternative employment.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the Government have collective responsibility for this through the Ministry of Power, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade? Is he also aware

that large numbers of miners were persuaded to leave their homes in Lanarkshire and elsewhere to go to this area and undertake work in this great new pit, and that they took on liabilities, which they were perfectly justified in doing, in connection with the promise of twenty or thirty years' work? Are the Government not aware that this is in fact a moral breach of contract which in any other industry would have required compensation paid to directors and other people if the contract were broken? Are the Government not prepared to look into this whole question to see what can be done for these miners?

Mr. Galbraith: My information is that the National Coal Board hopes that with the co-operation of the unions it will be possible to redeploy the majority of the men affected.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that even redeploying means that a man may lose £15 a week if he gets a job as an office boy after working as a trained man, and that is not exactly compensating him for the loss of his living? He may have many responsibilities which he will not be able to meet.

Mr. Galbraith: I think that any question of detail ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Rents)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will give a general direction to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to postpone implementing their decision to increase rents by 66 per cent. until the trade union officials have had an opportunity to discuss the effects of this increase with the Board.

Mr. Brooman-White: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend has no power to give a direction in the sense suggested.

Mr. Steele: Is the Under-Secretary aware that these are tied houses? They are in very remote areas and the people concerned have extra transport costs? Most of the Hydro-Electric Board's workers are manual workers earning about £9 10s. to £13 a week. This new rent scheme, which is being introduced at the behest of the Secretary of State


for Scotland, is raising these rents to the equivalent of the new gross annual value and it is obviously being done on the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Surely he can give directions to the Board that the Board might consult the trade unions to find out what will be the effect of all this?

Mr. Brooman-White: The position is that, so far as the houses are owned by the Board, this is entirely an administrative matter for the Board. Concerning the houses owned by the Hydro-Electric Housing Society, my right hon. Friend can only intervene if there is disagreement between the Society and the local authorities. I have no knowledge of any such disagreement so far.

Rents

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, (1) what is the average rent plus rates paid by tenants of three-apartment and four-apartment local authority houses, respectively, in the four Scottish cities;
(2) what is the average rent plus rates paid by tenants of three-apartment and four-apartment local authority houses, respectively, in the large burghs of Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith: These figures are not available centrally for houses of different sizes. Average rents before rebates at November, 1961, are set out in Cmnd. 1609 presented to Parliament last month.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not aware that we know the average rents but that the average local authority tenant thinks in terms of rent and rates, and would it not be a much fairer comparison in terms of costs for housing accommodation in England and Wales and in Scotland if we had the rent and rates in both accounts so that we could see what the people are paying?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is essential that it should be clear in people's minds that

rent and rates are entirely different things.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not in the rural areas that rent and rates tend to be higher than in the cities, although the earning capacity is lower?

Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say that these figures were not available? If he did, can they be got? Since the House wants them, will he take steps to get them?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that the time and labour involved would be justified, not only in my right hon. Friend's Department but also in the local authorities' departments. If the hon. Gentleman who asked the Question wishes, I can certainly arrange to let him have approximate average figures covering houses of all sizes.

Mr. Lawson: I would not have put the Question down if I had not wished to have the information.

CARGO SHIP "JAROSLAW DABROWSKI" (STOWAWAYS)

Mr. D. Foot: Mr. D. Foot (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the three stowaways who yesterday were taken off the Polish ship "Jaroslaw Dabrowski" have asked for political asylum in this country.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): These three men have asked to remain in this country. Their applications are being considered.

Mr. Foot: If it appears that these men are political refugees, will the Home Office act in the best traditions of this country and grant them political asylum?

Mr. Renton: If it is found that that is what they are, and that they are the kind of people to whom we do grant political asylum, I certainly say that the answer to that question will be "Yes".

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a local authority to contribute towards the expense of bodies carrying on activities outside its area.
My proposed Bill would be entitled the Local Government Act, 1948 (Amendment) Bill. Its object is to make it possible for a local authority, with the consent of the Minister, to contribute towards the expenses of an organisation which is carried on for the benefit of the residents of that local authority, but which is physically outside the geographical limits of the local authority concerned.
At present, by Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948, it is not possible for the local authority to do this. It is true that there are specific Acts which allow local authorities to contribute to various activities outside their areas. Examples can be found in the Education Act, 1944, and the National Health Service Act, 1946. But in each Act permission to contribute to these outside activities is strictly limited to the purposes laid down in those Acts.
There are, however, a large number of miscellaneous cases in which a power to contribute is desired. Some of the cases interest a large number of authorities and thus a large public interest is aroused. In such cases it has sometimes been possible to promote a Bill in the House to allow the local authorities to make this contribution. An example of this is that of the Eisteddfod Act, 1959, which was specially promoted to forward the interests of Welsh culture and song. Usually, however, the cases are much more modest and much more parochial than that, and a specific case which has arisen in my constituency is perhaps a typical example.
In Stroud, there is an old people's workshop which provides activity and part-time employment for elderly people and gives them not only the companionship which elderly people often miss, but also the sense of doing something and

being wanted which is even more important. The workshop is located within the area, geographically speaking, of the Stroud Urban District Council, but those who attend axe also drawn from the areas of the surrounding councils, including the Stroud Rural District Council. They have wished to contribute to the upkeep of this old people's workshop, but have found to their surprise and dismay that it is not possible for them to do so because Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948, forbids it.
It would be absurd in each case of this rather minor local character to promote a special Bill to allow it to be done as was done in the case of the Eisteddfod Act, 1949. It would equally be unnecessarily expensive and perhaps even impossible to arrange that the organisations should be physically erected in each rural district council. When one considers that some of these things are of the nature of theatrical performances and when the skilled and devoted personnel who always have to attend to these local affairs, it becomes clear that small councils cannot duplicate over and over again the activities in which they would like to indulge.
By my Bill, therefore, I seek a general power which will cover cases such as I have mentioned. It might be thought that a general power of this sort might open the floodgates to local expenditure almost too wide, but to those who think so I would point out that the consent of the Minister will still be necessary, that the test to be applied will be a strict test under the main Act of 1948, and that the benefit to be expected to residents from any contribution by their council to outside bodies must, under that Act, not be too remote.
I hope that the House thinks that the Bill, although modest in its extent, will, nevertheless, enable local authorities to discharge their duties in sustaining enterprises which local sentiment and sympathy wished to see sustained. I hope that the House will give me permission to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Antony Kershaw, Lord Balniel, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Arthur Holt, Mr. Denis Howell, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Robert Mathew, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ronald Russell, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Mr. John M. Temple, and Mr. George Thomas.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to enable a local authority to contribute towards the expenses of bodies carrying on activities outside its area, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday. 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I apologise for intervening at this stage, but I was in another part of the Commonwealth when the Bill was introduced and I want now to make a short speech in support of it. It seems to me an excellent Bill, particularly contrasted with the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, which the House was considering earlier in the Session. That was a Bill which, far from cementing the Commonwealth, actually harmed it, whereas this Bill at least does something towards cementing it.
In his original observations on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
… the mere expenditure of money does not by itself constitute a migration policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1557–58.]
I certainly agree with him, but I wonder whether the Government have an emigration policy. If not, they can evolve one now, because in all the business in connection with Rhodesia being about to be transferred to the Home Secretary they will have ample time to concentrate on such matters as emigration, although they may not have had time to concentrate on them before. I hope that they will be able to do so and that they will produce a genuine emigration policy.
In the Second Reading debate the Under-Secretary of State said that emigration was a matter of personal decision. I entirely agree. But it is influenced by many factors. For instance, there is the question whether there are likely to be houses for the emigrants. As the Under-Secretary knows well, there have been difficulties in Australia, and he knows of the need which there may be for the United Kingdom to subsidise houses for emigrants in Australia.
I know that there are difficulties about it and that it cannot be done very easily, but it is something which might be considered; and I wish that further consideration could be given to it, because many emigrants going to Australia now find they have not got the housing accommodation they would like. If it were available I have no doubt it would encourage people to go. The fact that both countries have similar social insurance systems helps enormously, as it does with other countries in the Commonwealth. These are the sort of things which can influence the personal decision of people whether they want to emigrate or not.
I should also like to ask the Under-Secretary this question. He told us, I think I am correct in saying, that 1,380,000 emigrants had gone to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, maybe, South Africa between 1946 and 1960. What I want to know, since I did not discover it from reading the hon. Gentleman's speech, is what is the net figure. Is that figure net or gross? How many have returned? It seems to me essential that we should know the net number who have emigrated rather than just the gross number.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be in the position of the Home Secretary, who was unable to answer a somewhat similar question at the time when we were considering the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) showed the figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be better informed than that.
One of the things we hear a great deal about—and I think that it is very unfortunate that we should hear about it—is the loss of skilled labour from this country. We are told that all the skilled men are leaving the country so that no skilled people will be left here. We are asked, "What are we to do about it?" I think that is a very depressing view to take, and I would suggest something which might be done. I would suggest, as other people have suggested before, that we might do something to encourage the setting up of more universities and increasing the size of some of those already existing, so that as a result there

would be more people being trained and we should have more skilled people.
Surely it is very desirable that this country should be, as it were, a dynamo of skill, so that we can send out skilled, trained people to Commonwealth countries and build up there British ideas and the British way of life. We can perfectly well train enough people if we pay more attention to our universities and to developing new universities and, indeed, technical colleges. I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State will use their influence to see that we do encourage university and technical college development so as to produce these trained people to make up for those who are now emigrating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) talked about 30,000—I think he said-Commonwealth students who are coming to this country and said what a very good thing that was. It is an excellent thing, but I am afraid that as a result of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill there may perhaps be a slight reduction in the number of those desiring to come here as students.
Recently, when I was in Nigeria, I found people saying, "Oh, yes, certainly we want to go to Britain as students, because there we are given education. It is the only place we can go to where we will get education." But they did not say, "We want to go because Britain is the country for which we have a special feeling as the central place in the Commonwealth." They did not take that attitude. They took the attitude, "We want to go because of what is offered to us." It is a pity to think that they come in that spirit rather than in the spirit of wanting to come to the central country of the Commonwealth.
I should like to say a word about Rhodesia. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here because, after all, he is responsible now for Rhodesia, and he had, perhaps, better get used to sitting here and taking part in our debates on these subjects so that he may equip himself even better than he is now to deal with these questions which have been now suddenly thrust upon him so unexpectedly. I believe that we should not be considering the question of immigration into Rhodesia; we should be considering instead the


question of emigration from Rhodesia, for that we may well have to do before very long.
We know what has happened to people in Kenya, the people who were told to go out to settle in Kenya, who were told that the Government would do everything possible to help them. Circumstances have arisen now in which they want—many of them—to emigrate. All I would say is that I hope those same circumstances will not happen to people who are being sent out to Rhodesia.
Let there be no mistake about this. I think that in Rhodesia there should be majority rule. That majority rule may well be African, black African rule. In fact, it must be African black rule if it is to be majority rule. That being so, I think that it is very unfortunate to send out emigrants to that country knowing that they may have to face that situation in a relatively short time, and, having faced it, may have to consider emigrating.
I was in South Africa two years ago and there I found that there was considerable talk about emigration. So much talk was there that I was informed by one man that at the golf club in a large town he was approached by a Minister in Dr. Verwoerd's Government who actually asked him, "Can you tell me what is the best method of emigrating to Australia? What steps should I take to get there as soon as possible?" That is a curious state of affairs even in South Africa, but I think that that sort of state of affairs may well come about in Rhodesia before very long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) talked about inter-Dominion migration and I understood the Under-Secretary of State to have said that we did not want to have too much connection with it and that it should be left to the Dominions themselves. For all that there is an excellent case for setting up something already suggested by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who thought we should have a Commonwealth employment bureau.
I think that we should do more than that. We should have a Commonwealth migration bureau manned by people—not just from this country but from every part of the Commonwealth. It would

be a practical demonstration of what the Commonwealth can do, and this is the kind of practical demonstration we want to have today of the kind of life we have within the Commonwealth. I think that it could and should be done.
The Commonwealth today is slowly—not so slowly, either—slipping apart. Many of us regret that this should be so. This Bill does something—not so much, but a small amount—towards cementing the Commonwealth, rather than helping it to slip apart, and I hope that through it, and through the kind of work which it envisages, everything will be done to encourage migration within the Commonwealth. We must stop being frightened that we shall lose all our skilled people, and encourage them to go abroad within the Commonwealth so that this country may continue to be what it has been through so many years the central pivot of Commonwealth life.
If we can do this we may have done something to remedy the harm which has been done in recent years by much Government legislation in the sphere of emigration, and by so much lack of legislation.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I find myself very much in agreement with much of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has said, except his general criticisms of the spirit with which the Government are pursuing the Bill. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I very much support the purpose of the Bill. I am pleased to see that we are now continuing with this very important Measure. I am also pleased to see that the Government have decided to continue with the figure of £1½ million per annum. I hope that this means that they will change their policy of recent years of considering a miserable sum of about £150,000 for this very important purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the view which I expressed on Second Reading, that we should have a Commonwealth employment bureau. I was sorry to see that this idea was rejected by my hon. Friend. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to see this Commonwealth conception, and such a bureau based throughout the


Commonwealth, so that every Commonwealth citizen could go to its offices in the capital of his own country and get there all the information he wants and be able to see at sight, as it were, the availability of opportunities throughout the whole Commonwealth. I should like to see staff to give advice at all the offices of such a Commonwealth bureau.
When my hon. Friend rejected this idea he used these words:
It has never been suggested to us by any of the Commonwealth countries seeking British migrants that they want us to set up some special co-ordinating machinery or that we shall set about boosting emigration ourselves." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1586.]
The point which we wish to make is that we should not sit in the House waiting for Commonwealth countries to take the initiative. Occasionally, we should take the initiative ourselves. Here is a practical suggestion that I believe will be welcomed by Commonwealth countries and which would create a far greater transference of people throughout the Commonwealth and achieve the object which we all stand for of bringing about closer ties with Commonwealth countries.
I would ask my hon. Friend to say something about the collection of statistics and particularly about people who travel by air. In Committee my hon. Friend rejected an Amendment moved by the Opposition on this subject on the ground that experiments were being carried out on the basis of samples. When does my hon. Friend expect the first results of this method to be known, and when will he be able to judge whether this is a successful method of obtaining the required information?
I should like to dispute a statement made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend about the difficulty in encouraging too many skilled and trained people to leave this country and to go to parts of the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend, on Second Reading, said:
If we are to survive as a nation, let alone provide our Commonwealth partners with the resources they need for their own development, our economy here must be strong. If too large a proportion of our young people and of our skilled and professional folk leave our shores, our ability to maintain a high rate of economic growth and to continue as the heartland of the Commonwealth system is diminished".—

[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1582.]
I dispute this, because I consider that the present distribution of skilled manpower throughout the Commonwealth is far too concentrated in these islands. I do not believe that this is to our economic advantage.
If we provide skilled people to develop the enormous material resources and colossal consumer markets of the Commonwealth countries it will be a gigantic boost to our own economy. It will increase our power of competition and will quicken the whole pace of our economy. This narrow-minded thinking in terms of keeping skilled people to these shores and limiting the numbers going abroad is reflected in the fact that the Government have used so little of the money under these Measures in the past five years.
When we consider that our economy can collapse completely if we fail to develop the countries of Africa and Asia in such a way that they are saved from Communism, it is surely wrong for us to spend £1,000 million a year upon our own education services and less than £200 million on total aid to the Commonwealth, and then begrudge a small number of people going to those countries to assist them in their development.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at this matter and to let us know today that he intends to ask for £1½ million a year not because he wants to avoid the image that would be created by reducing the sum but because his idea is not to continue on the present low level of endeavour in this sphere, but to increase this work tenfold.

3.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): I should like to answer some of the points raised in the debate. There is, of course, nothing novel in the Bill. It merely seeks to renew provisions which the various Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts have made over the years for a further period of five years, and it enables the Secretary of State to co-operate with Commonwealth Governments in a number of schemes of emigration. If any new schemes are put up to us by Commonwealth countries we will consider them carefully and will spend up to the limit of £1½ million which we have provided.
I was asked about emigration not merely from this country to Commonwealth countries but from other Commonwealth countries. Rhodesia was mentioned particularly. Emigration from countries in Africa is outside the scope of the Bill. This particular Measure is limited because it is a renewal of the 1922 Act and successive statutes which were limited to schemes favouring emigration from these islands to Commonwealth countries.
That is not to say that people of British stock living in other parts of the world are under any special disability if they are attracted by the prospect of starting a new life, for example, in Australia. The Australians operate a large number of migration schemes. Australian Government offices overseas, including trade commissioner offices in Nairobi and Salisbury, provide information about these schemes, and it is for the individual in this matter to consider all the relevant factors and make up his own mind.

The question of loss of skilled manpower has been raised. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Government recognise it is a British interest that countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand should continue to look primarily to us for immigrants. Looking back over the last century I think that we would all agree that the movement of Britons to these countries has not been a matter of fewer people here and more over there, cancelling one another out. It has meant an enormous aggregate increase in the strength of the British race and the extension of its influence in the world. This process must continue, and the Bill indicates that we want it to continue.

If, however, a very large proportion of our young and skilled people go, leaving the older people here, it is bound to have a damaging effect upon our economy. Of course, it is a matter of degree, but the Oversea Migration Board itself made plain that
There is concern at the effect of the present shortages of certain categories of skilled and professional manpower on the development of our economy, even when allowance is made for gains by immigration".

The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked me about the balance of migration. From 1953 to 1957 there was a net loss by

migration from these islands. It amounted in 1957 to 72,000. Since then there has been a net, though not appreciably large gain. It was 45,000 in 1958, 44,000 in 1959, 82,000 in 1960, and 160,000 in 1961. These are not massive figures when seen against the background of our total population. The point, which the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to clarify, is that at the moment there is a small net gain.

It was suggested that we should have a Commonwealth board or a centralised Commonwealth machinery here in Britain to encourage emigration from this country, but here, of course, the difficulty is that our relationship with the Commonwealth is one with countries which are competing with one another for British emigrants. A British emigrant is not in the market to go anywhere in the world. The decision to migrate is very much a personal matter for the man who, for one reason or another, wishes to uproot himself and take his family to a British country overseas.

Certainly, if Commonwealth Governments were prepared to put up ideas to us along these lines we would seriously entertain them, but I am convinced that they would prefer in present circumstances to deal with this matter on a bilateral basis. It would be quite wrong for us to set up such machinery on our own. It is the business of Commonwealth offices in London to interview, select and advise would-be emigrants and to tell them what facilities they can expect at the other end and what opportunities await them overseas.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) about the sampling procedure which we have been following for some months to fill the gap in our information about statistics of outward movements by air. The results should be available in the near future. As I indicated during the Committee stage, if it appears that this sampling yields inadequate information the Government will be prepared to re-examine the whole position with a view to the necessary administrative or legislative action.

We have had a short but interesting and valuable debate, and I do not think that there is need for me to add anything, except, once again, to reaffirm


that the Government are as anxious as anyone to ensure a steady flow of good British migrants to Commonwealth countries overseas.

I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, however, and to other hon. Gentlemen, that I fully understand their enthusiasm and share it, but it is necessary to see this matter in perspective. Commonwealth countries, of necessity, are anxious to attract young and highly skilled workers. As a consequence, we lose people in whom a good deal has been invested through education, training and social services, and who are essential to our own economy. On the other hand, it is true that there are economic and political advantages in encouraging British emigration to the Commonwealth. This has long been the case and will continue to be so.

It is not merely the case that emigrants to Commonwealth countries help to maintain and increase demand in their new countries for British goods and services, but they carry with them a certain way of life and outlook on the world which we wish to see preserved and extended. They help to strengthen the traditional links of sentiment and interest which have done so much to hold the Commonwealth together in a divided world. One cannot evaluate these things precisely, but we know that they are important. It is therefore, all a matter of balance. The House may be assured that this Bill gives a firm assurance of the Government's intention that emigration to the Commonwealth shall continue.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: In his closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that he was not unsympathetic and, indeed, not unco-operative, but a lot of what he said underlined the need for something on a larger scale. Those closing remarks indicated what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). The position is that a number of people leave our shores every year to settle in other parts of the world. Some of them, of necessity, are drawn into the United States or into other countries which are not part of the Commonwealth. I suppose that some of that is inevitable.
I would have thought that there was an obvious need for some organisation of the type suggested which would consider the whole question in relation to the many countries in the Commonwealth which obviously need increased populations. New Zealand, for example, is grossly underpopulated. If, in the years ahead, the New Zealanders are to vindicate their right to the islands they will need a very much larger population. We hope that much of that population will come from these islands. The other case which is so obvious is that of Australia, which in the years since the war has had the policy of settling people from all parts of Europe.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have noted, however, that the countries of origin of the new Australians of today are very different from those of the new Australians before the war, and that the proportion of people from this country has been getting smaller and smaller. Therefore, there is a considerable case not merely for such an organisation to co-ordinate Commonwealth settlement, but also for assistance of this kind on an enhanced scale. If we are to make sure that as large a proportion as possible of the people who leave this country go to Commonwealth countries, and not elsewhere, increased financial aid of this kind is required.

Mr. Braine: Eighty-two per cent. of all British emigrants go to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Gower: That has been a general percentage over a considerable period, but I do not think that my hon. Friend can say that it is the percentage over the last two or three years.

Mr. Braine: It was the percentage in 1960, the last year for which we have full statistics.

Mr. Gower: I am gratified to hear that, because I had imagined that the percentage was lower. Nevertheless, even if that is so, I feel that the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and others for increasing the scale of this legislation has been made out.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(PROCEDURE AS TO NOTIFICATION OF CONVICTIONS.)

Convictions registered against an accused person or other matters tending to his detriment shall not be placed before the judge presiding over any criminal trial until the court has reached a decision that he is guilty of the offence charged.—[Mr. Weitzman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Since I moved this Clause in Committee, I find that the fact that judges are in possession of a record of the previous convictions of an accused person during the hearing of a case, and before the verdict is given, has aroused a great deal of public interest, and it is surprising how few members of the public and, indeed, how few lawyers were aware of this fact.
The statutory authority which permits questions to be asked of an accused person which tend to show that he has been previously convicted of an offence other than that for which he is standing trial, or that he is of bad character, is to be found in Section 1 (f) of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. These questions can only be asked when proof of such previous offences is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence for which he is charged, or when he gives evidence of good character, or when he casts imputations on the character of witnesses for the prosecution, or when he has given evidence against another person charged with the same offence.
It is true that this refers to the evidence in the hearing of the jury, and it may be said that a list of convictions in the possession of the trial judge, which he does not communicate to the jury during the hearing, is not such evidence. But obviously the object is to permit the jury to decide, and to decide only on what it has heard, and—and this is important—upon the direction of the trial judge.
After all, it is trial by judge and jury. I quote again the words of Mr. Justice Parks as long ago as 1823:
He knew that he erred sometimes because he was human and nothing that was human could escape error.
A judge is human. He is not infallible. Indeed, the Streatfeild Committee, when it rejected the idea of an extension of Crown courts, specifically recognised this. The jury is, of course, the judge of the facts. We all know, however, that when considering the facts, their weight and relevance, the jury pays great attention to the words used by the judge in his summing up. It relies to a great extent on the guidance of the judge in its consideration of the facts.
We often find a judge using such phrases as, "You will think, members of the jury, that such-and-such is the case." Or, "Do you really think, members of the jury, that that is a story you can accept?" It is true that judges very often say, "Remember, members of the jury, that you are the sole judges of fact. If I express a view, you need not accept it."
Surely it must be recognised that the manner in which the judge presents evidence to the jury in his summing up, the views he expresses as to how it may be regarded by the jury, his very gestures and intonations, may well lead the jury to return the verdict it does.
I recognise fully the excellence of our legal system. I pay tribute to the constant effort on the part of our judges to try cases with the utmost fairness and impartiality. But judges are human. How can a judge, knowing that a man has a list of previous convictions, perhaps for the same crime as the one with which he is charged and to which he has pleaded not guilty, dismiss those matters from his mind, as he must, when addressing the jury? To say the least, is it not possible that they may colour his mind and lead him to use phrases, or to present the evidence in his summing-up in such a way as to show prejudice against the accused?
In replying to me in Committee on the Bill, the Solicitor-General said that there were some judges whose practice it was never to look at the list of previous convictions. Is that not a recognition


of the force of my argument and of the need to make that practice universal by enacting this new Clause?
It was said by the Solicitor-General that my proposal would render impossible the conduct of a criminal trial as we know it. I do not know what the justification is for that statement. It is true that, when applications for bail are made, a judge must know something of the record of the accused, but such applications are generally made in the magistrates' courts, and, when bail is granted, it is as a rule renewed almost automatically unless there is good reason to the contrary. In the few cases when application has to be made at assizes or quarter sessions, it could be made to a judge who is not trying the case.
It is true that a judge is, in some cases—this was put as a strong argument against me—called upon to exercise his discretion in permitting questions as to character when character is in issue. The judges to whom the Solicitor-General referred, those who do not look at the list, apparently find no difficulty in exercising that discretion without such knowledge. It may be that in certain cases—I think that they will be rare—it would be an advantage for the judge to know the accused's previous record, but such advantage is, in my view, well outweighed by the great majority of cases in which such knowledge may affect the judge's mind to the detriment of the accused. It is said that if a defendant does not give evidence of good character the judge will know that there is something against him. That is very different from supplying to the judge a detailed list of previous convictions.
We were told by the Solicitor-General that the practice had existed for eighty years, and probably longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked what authority there was for it. I have diligently searched the law books, but my researches have failed to reveal any reference to the practice. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us a little more about it.
It is a fundamental principle of our law that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved—I emphasise the word "proved"—to be guilty. We do not permit sub-judice comments. When an argument as to the admissibility

of evidence is presented, the jury is sent out so that it may not hear any reference to the evidence mentioned during the argument. If counsel were during the hearing to pass to the judge a note referring to the character of the accused or of any witness, this would plainly be most improper and might well be a ground for a new trial before another judge.
We take the greatest care to see that the rules of evidence are strictly observed, yet here we have the possibility—I emphasise that it need be no more than a possibility for the purpose of my case—that a judge's mind might be influenced, however impartial he strove to be, by knowledge of an accused person's previous convictions. It might be so influenced that his summing up was affected in the way I have described. Having regard to all these considerations, I ask the Government to accept the new Clause.

4.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John Hobson): The Government have considered the point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and other hon. Members, but, having considered it, they still feel that the present practice of placing before the judge of assize at trials by jury a record provided by the Prison Commissioners of the previous convictions of the accused should be continued. In our view, it is a necessary and, indeed, an ancient part of our criminal practice and one of which no criticism has ever been made until now.
The proposal in the new Clause was very fully debated in Standing Committee. Some hon. Members expressed considerable surprise at finding that the practice had existed for so long, though I should have thought that most persons concerned with the administration of the criminal law were well aware that it had existed and been followed for very many years. It is known to have existed for as long as the Prison Commission has existed, that is to say, since 1877, and it is believed that the Prison Commissioners took over a practice which had existed before they were established. Clearly, it is a practice of considerable antiquity—certainly 100 years old and probably much more.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me for the authority upon which the practice has been carried on. It is within the inherent powers of the courts of record of this country to lay down whatever practice is convenient for themselves provided that it is not contrary to any statutory provision laid down by Parliament. As the hon. and learned Member knows, there are very many practices of the criminal courts which have no statutory authority, but which are hallowed by tradition and usage. They are, of course, subject to alteration either by Parliament or upon consideration by Her Majesty's judges should they decide that it is inconvenient or improper for any such practice to continue.
I say this not to justify the practice—the mere fact that it has existed for a considerable time cannot possibly be a justification by itself—but merely to show that this is no new thing which has suddenly arisen. It is definitely not a furtive practice, as was suggested in Committee. Many people are astonished that so few appear to have been aware of its existence.
The object of all right hon. and hon. Members must be to try to ensure that trials by jury are conducted as fairly as possible and that nothing is done which is likely to prejudice the fair trial of persons whose liberty, or, perhaps, whose life, may be imperilled. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that our system of criminal trial by jury has been the admiration of the world, that all other countries have said how much they admire it, and that the impartiality and skill of our judges has also been greatly admired. Nobody, until this moment, during the course of the last 100 years, has suggested that this practice has in any way impaired the efficiency, the fairness, or the impartiality of those whose responsibility it is to preside over trials by jury.
I believe that this is a sound practice, and one which can operate, and not infrequently does operate, in the interests of the accused. It is easy to say, as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North did, that knowledge of the accused's bad record may colour a judge's summing up. So far as judges are inadequate and liable

to err, a large number of things may occasionally influence them to take what some people might think is perhaps a prejudiced view of an accused person, but this piece of information which is put on their desks so that it is available for them is one with which over the years they seem to have known very well how to deal. It is, as I said in Committee, necessary and essential at many stages of the trial that they should have the information so that the trial may be conducted properly, and so that decisions which they have to take about the conduct of the trial may be based on accurate and proper information.
Certainly, when summing up to the jury a judge is bound, first, not to disclose the fact of those previous convictions to the jury unless they have properly been admitted in evidence. Secondly, he is bound, in his summing up, to put before the jury fairly the whole of the defence, whatever he may think about it. If he fails to put before the jury what the defendant has said, and what his defence is, as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North knows, any conviction following on such an inadequate direction to the jury is liable to be reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Therefore, the judge is himself strictly limited as to the way in which he can deal with the matter, and is prohibited from disclosing to the jury that an accused person has been previously convicted unless that fact has been properly admitted in evidence in accordance with our law.
I am sure that hon. Members will remember that it is only the jury who are the judges of fact in a trial by jury, and that the judge who presides does not have any responsibility at all for deciding the facts. The jury alone are the judges of fact and, as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North said, in almost every criminal trial the jury are reminded by the judge that it is their function alone to come to a determination of the facts upon the evidence which is before them. This will not in the ordinary case include any information at all as to the previous convictions of the accused person.
I do not suppose that in many cases the judge who presides over a trial by


jury would need the information long in advance, except in so far as it will be necessary in future for him to look at the records in accordance with the proposals of the Streatfeild Committee so that if there is a plea of guilty he can be ready to deal with it immediately. The whole of the second part of the Streatfeild Report is devoted to seeing that superior courts shall be able to sentence accused persons promptly and upon the fullest possible information, and to seeing that judges who are to preside at such trials have that information available in advance in case there is a plea of guilty.
The proposal in the new Clause would cut straight across that provision and make it impossible for any information about accused persons who are to be sentenced by a judge to be provided to him before the hearing, because he could never know whether an accused person was to plead guilty or not. Therefore, this proposal would inhibit any prior information being given to the judge in any case, and would probably prevent the promptness of sentence which is a desirable object emphasised by the Streatfeild Committee. It would thus lead to frequent remands and adjournments for further information to be obtained.
If the judge is to have the information of previous convictions, it is essential that it should be provided for him before the trial, and that he should have it with him on his desk, because if, in the course of the trial, it became necessary for him to be provided with such information, the mere request for it, and the mere handing up to him of the document containing the information, would be exceedingly embarrassing and would draw to the attention of any member of the jury who knew anything at all about court procedure the fact that a question as to the previous convictions of an accused person was being raised, and that that accused person must have previous convictions because of what was happening.
It is also true that in many instances the fact of the judge having information in his possession and available can be of the greatest assistance to an accused person. Suppose an accused man has an alibi and says that he could

not have been at the scene of a particular crime because on that evening he was celebrating with a number of his friends, and the judge knows from the other evidence in the case that the accused lives in the same street as the people with whom the accused says he was celebrating. Suppose the accused is asked, "What was the occasion of the celebration?" and replies, "I had not seen them for a year". He may then well be asked by a judge who is anxious to understand the position, "Are you asking the jury to believe that you were celebrating on this evening with people who lived in the same street as you because you had not seen them for over a year?". He may well have been celebrating with them because he had spent the previous year in prison.
The accused can give the explanation that makes his story probable only by disclosing that during that period he had been in prison. Frequently a line of questioning, or a line of cross-examination, puts an accused person in the awkward position of either telling a lie or of disclosing to the court that he has previous convictions and has at some period of his life been in prison. This happens very often, and judges who preside over trials by jury can divert counsel, and themselves avoid, asking questions which may lead to this awkward position which may well have serious consequences, and might on occasions lead to the whole of a long trial being nullified towards its end.
I was told by an hon. Member who had experience of this kind that he had been engaged in a case that had taken nearly three weeks to try, and that near the end of the second week the learned judge, who was one of those who was not in the habit of looking at the record of previous convictions to see if there were any, embarked on a series of questions of the accused which, fortunately, did not, but very nearly did, admit improperly before the jury the previous convictions of that accused person.
If that had happened, it would have been a disaster for the accused person. It would have meant that the whole trial would have had to start again. The whole of the costs incurred up to that moment would have been thrown away, and the unfortunate accused


person would have had to go through the agonies and expense of almost the whole of a second trial.
4.30 p.m.
It is circumstances of this sort which make it necessary for the judge to have available at his hand the information which will enable him to prevent incidents of that sort occurring. It is true that I said during the Committee stage that there were judges who never looked at the list of previous convictions. I think that I stated that too high. I meant that there were judges who were not in the habit of looking at it until it became necessary.
I think that there are occasions in the course of every criminal trial when the judge who is presiding, in order that he may determine questions about the admissability of evidence or the admissability of the character of the accused, must be informed as to the previous convictions of the accused. He cannot possibly exercise his overriding discretion as to whether, even if it is technically admissable, he should in the interests of the accused admit that evidence unless he can see what the character of the accused is, and whether it is such that it would be unfair to the accused person to have the record admitted.
There are other cases, particularly when an accused person is not defended by counsel. There is a famous account in the criminal courts of an accused person who was carrying on his own case in such a way that he was putting the prosecution in a position in which it could have led evidence as to his previous convictions. The line of his attack upon the witnesses for the prosecution would have admitted his bad character. The judge, knowing that he had a bad character, and, I am sure, following the practice that any other judge would have done, wrote a note to the accused person pointing out that if he continued along that line it would result in the jury knowing about his own bad character. The accused, was, naturally, very grateful.
It is occasions and instances of this sort which make it necessary for a judge to have under his hand and available at any moment that he may need it the information as to whether the accused person has been previously convicted, how long ago and how frequently.

Mr. Weitzman: I am sure that the Solicitor-General does not want the House to misunderstand what he is saying. He said in Committee:
I ought to inform the Committee that there are certain judges who make a practice never to look at the list of previous convictions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th February, 1962; c. 140.]

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have said that that was what I said in Committee, but I added that I thought I had slightly overstated it.
The position as far as I know it, and as I knew it then, was that some judges did not make a practice of looking at the previous convictions until it was necessary to do so. I have certainly never of my own knowledge heard of a judge who has never on any occasion found that it was necessary to look at the list of previous convictions.
I am sorry if I overstated it in Committee and misled the hon. and learned Gentleman. Certainly, I put it too high so far as my knowledge and experience go. As I have said, there are occasions when judges who have not taken the precaution of looking at the list have imperilled the trial and put the accused at risk of having to undergo the expense and danger of retrying the whole matter.
From the experience that we have had during the long time that this practice has gone on, I do not believe that there are any harmful results which have on any occasion ever been found to result from this practice, or are likely to result from it. I believe that it assists the judges to secure that there is a fair trial. It has for very long been part of our ordinary procedure, and I therefore ask the House to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I begin by offering my congratulations to the Solicitor-General on his first appearance in that capacity at the Dispatch Box. I am sure I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say what a pleasure it is to see him and to have listened to the first speech that he has made today on this Bill, dealing so fully and so carefully with the new Clause moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
Having said that, I must go on to say that I am by no means satisfied with


the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given to the proposals contained in the Clause. I share with the hon. Gentleman, and, I have no doubt, with other hon. Members, a profound sense of admiration for the way in which British justice is administered in our courts of law, and it is in no sense derogatory to our appreciation of the impartiality and integrity of British justice that the new Clause has been moved. Indeed, it is because we are anxious to do everything possible to enhance and ensure the reputation for absolute impartiality and integrity of British justice that we attach importance to the Clause.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, since the matter was first ventilated in Committee public opinion, as reflected in a number of organs of the Press, has evinced a good deal of disquiet and dissatisfaction at the revelation for the first time to the public, and, I am sure, for the first time even to a large number of members of the legal profession, that it has been customary in our criminal courts for the judges to be supplied with a list of previous convictions of an accused person. This raises an issue which we think is of fundamental importance to the purity of justice.
The case has been argued by the Solicitor-General both today and in Committee. In Committee, he seemed on more than one occasion to suggest that it was essential for the protection of an accused that the judge should be supplied with a list of the accused's previous convictions. That itself would seem to be an astonishing claim to make, but that was what the Solicitor-General said in Committee and again today. In Committee, he said:
There are frequent occasions when, in the course of a trial, a prisoner is cross-examined … by counsel for the prosecution about events that actually took place before the offence for which the man is charged …
He went on to say:
If the judge does not know that at a particular time the accused was in prison, he cannot assist him …
He also said:
A stage is very frequently reached in a trial when a person of bad character desires to make imputations against the character of the prosecutor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th February, 1962; c. 135.]

In fact, the whole case both today and in Committee was based upon the fact that there are either some occasions or many occasions—I do not know; there may be few occasions—when it is absolutely essential for the protection of an accused that the judge should have a list of previous convictions. The Solicitor-General today has given us a few instances—no one doubts this—in which it has been possible to steer a prosecuting counsel off a line of examination, or to protect an accused by reason of the fact that the judge has known of previous convictions.
But surely that duty can equally well be discharged by the counsel for the defence. Counsel for the defence must know of the previous convictions of an accused person, and he can equally well discharge the responsibility, which is primarily his and not that of the judge, of preventing an accused person being prejudiced in the kind of way in which the Solicitor-General has described.
4.45 p.m.
Whereas there might, perhaps, be some force in the Solicitor-General's argument, if it were confined to the limited number of cases in which the accused is not represented by counsel, it does not seem to me to have any force in those cases where an accused person is defended by counsel, who can give him precisely the same kind of protection as that which the Solicitor-General says the judge in certain cases can give.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in most cases it is not the prosecuting counsel who is taking the risk, but that it is counsel for the defence who takes this risk, and, at that point, the judge warns him by saying, "Mr. So-and-so, do you think it is really worth while to pursue this matter any further?"

Mr. Fletcher: It may be that it is in that sort of instance that it also occurs. It may be that counsel for the defence are more remiss in their duties, because, in some cases, a judge has a list of the previous convictions. I am quite sure that if it were generally known that the judge had no list of the previous convictions, this duty could equally well be discharged by counsel for the defence.
It seemed to me that the Solicitor-General conceded the argument of my hon. and learned Friend and myself


when he recognised, both in Committee and again today—except that he somewhat qualified it today—that there are some judges who make a practice never to look at the list of previous convictions. Today, the Solicitor-General told us that he was not sure whether "never" was the right word, but, from my inquiries, I am convinced that it is. It is well known that there are and always have been some judges who do follow this practice, and Lord Hewart, when Lord Chief Justice, was one of them. They did so for a very good reason.
The reason why some judges make a practice of not looking at the previous convictions is because they believe that if they were aware of the accused's previous convictions, they would, to some extent, consciously or unconsciously, somehow or other, and however impartial they might try to be, be influenced by that knowledge. Even if they did their best to conceal that information from the jury, there is the risk that by intonation or inflexion, or the form in which a question was put, they might betray that information, and, thereby, the jury would know of the judge's view of the case.
Therefore, the fact that there is a disparity of custom between some judges and others shows what a very great risk is involved in allowing this practice to be at the whim and discretion of an individual judge. Both arguments cannot be right. The Solicitor-General cannot contend in this House, on the one hand, that judges cannot do their duty in criminal cases unless they have this information, and, on the other, contend that some judges are perfectly well discharging their duties in presiding over criminal cases by deliberately refusing to look at the list of previous convictions.
The Solicitor-General went on to say:
I should have thought that sensible judges, if they knew a person proposed to plead not guilty, would not read all the probation reports and the police antecedent history report, and matters of that sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th February, 1962; c. 140.]
What does that mean? The Solicitor-General thinks that sensible judges would take a glance at it, and that is all, but what of the other judges?
What are they supposed to do? The Solicitor-General's observation was confined

to those judges whom he described as "sensible judges", but an accused person is liable to come before any judge or any jury.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: They are not all sensible.

Mr. Fletcher: This is really a serious matter, and it has become far more serious since it was discussed in Committee, and for this reason. Not only were we and the public alarmed to hear that judges had lists of previous convictions, but we now know that, in some cases, the foreman of a jury has a list of previous convictions, and the judge does not interfere. I do not know where we are getting to.
May I invite the attention of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General to something with which he is no doubt familiar—the case of Thompson v. the Director of Public Prosecutions, reported in The Times of 13th February? In that case, it was found, after an accused person had been convicted, that the foreman of the jury had produced to the other members of the jury a list of the accused's previous convictions, and had thereby influenced the verdict. When that fact became known, as one might have expected, counsel for the accused asked for the conviction to be set aside on the ground that the jury knew of the previous convictions. But no, the court refused to set aside the conviction.
The case went to the House of Lords, and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords, as reported in The Times, did not, apparently, see anything wrong even in the jury having a list of the accused man's previous convictions, and said that it was not going to order a new trial. Lord Simonds, who presided over the House of Lords Appeal Committee, said that their Lordships were well satisfied that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was in all respects accurate. The Court of Appeal had said that it was not going to interfere with the information which came before the members of the jury, even if the members of the jury were supplied with a list of the man's previous convictions.
This seems to me to be a most shocking state of affairs, and it is because of our concern at this state of the law and the position into which we are drifting,


though inadvertently, that we are so concerned about this new Clause. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, and as we put it in the Committee, there is no statutory authority for a judge being supplied with a list of previous convictions. It is a practice which has developed without any warrant or approval from this House.
I want to ask some further questions. What is this list, and who supplies it? I am told that it is supplied by the Prison Commissioners, and I am also told that it is not always accurate. I am told that, after a conviction, as is quite reasonable, the police supply a list of previous convictions, and that it is frequently found that the list of previous convictions supplied by the police to the judge differs from the list of previous convictions supplied by the Prison Commissioners. Therefore, if this practice is to be continued, if it is to be upheld by Parliament after we have ventilated it, it is at least important that the list should be accurate.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, bear in mind that there is a safeguard at that stage of the case that does not exist earlier in the case. At the moment when it is essential that the judge should know the previous record of the accused, that is to say, after he has been convicted, he is not entitled to take into account at all the list of previous convictions the judge has unless the prisoner admits it or it is otherwise proved. Up to that stage, the judge may be relying on a list of previous convictions that is wrong, and which has certainly neither been admitted nor proved.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. As usual, his observation has strengthened the case which I am trying to argue.
I did not want the House to assume if it were proposed to adopt this principle—I hope that it will not be adopted—of allowing a judge to have a list of the previous convictions of an accused because that has been the practice since 1898, that the list which at present goes to the judge is in every way accurate. My information is that it is obviously inaccurate and that no steps are taken to check its accuracy. I do not

know upon whose authority it goes to the judge.
Apparently the list is prepared by the Prison Commissioners. Do they have all the material with which to check the list? Is it the responsibility of the Home Secretary? Normally, he is responsible for what documents are prepared by the Prison Commissioners and sent to the judge during a criminal case. Is there any machinery for checking the accuracy of the list? Or is it the idea that if a man has previous convictions, so long as some list is sent in, it is not necessary to have machinery to check it? It is just necessary to let the judge know whether a man in the dock has a bad character or not.
The principle of British justice is that a person has a fair trial and is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. If he has a bad character, and has previous convictions, it is all the more important that he should have a fair trial and that his past history should not be used in any way to his prejudice in deciding whether he is guilty of the particular charge on which he is being tried. That is the reason why it seems to us that this practice however it has grown up, cannot be justified and ought not to be allowed to go on.
The Solicitor-General said that it has gone on in the past, and in future, unless we allow a judge to have this list of previous convictions, it may be inconsistent with some of the recommendations made in Part II of the Streatfeild Report. I do not accept that view at all. We are concerned to see the recommendations in Part II of the Report adopted, because we believe that when it comes to sentencing a person who has been convicted there is no reason why there should not be a short interval between conviction and sentence. We are all anxious to see that when it comes to the judge deciding what is the appropriate sentence for a person found guilty the judge should have the fullest information, not only about a man's previous convictions, but about his background history, aptitudes, mental health and employment, his circumstances and his environment, so that the appropriate sentence may be imposed.
But it cannot for a moment be assumed that those considerations, which are directed to providing the best sentence for a person, should be allowed to


override or prejudice the far more fundamental conception, that nothing should be done to prejudice the completely free and impartial trial of a person presumed innocent until he has been found guilty.
It seems to us that this matter is one of the moist grave in the whole system of the administration of criminal justice, and that it has become worse because now we know that jurymen, with impunity and without any correction by the Court of Criminal Appeal—

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller) rose—

Mr. Fletcher: Let me finish my sentence. The Attorney-General will, no doubt, have an opportunity to reply in due course.
I wish to make this point, because I think it a matter of importance and particularly relevant. Because we attach very much importance to this matter I beg the House to think carefully before rejecting the new Clause.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has raised a matter of grave consideration. It is a practice which, as we have been told, has been maintained for over 100 years. I admit that during the Committee stage proceedings I voted against the hon. and learned Member. I thought that there must be some authority for this old-established custom.
But since the Committee stage I have tried to find an authority and, like my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I have discovered that there is no authority for it. As he says, there is an inherent power in the court to order its own business in this way. He excused it by saying that there was no statutory authority. I should have thought there was a rule of natural justice which might have prevented a custom of this sort from becoming established.
As I understand the arguments they are twofold. The first is the practical argument and the second is the argument of necessity. In putting the practical argument the Solicitor-General said that we must have promptness in sentence following on conviction when there has been a plea of guilty. Surely that relates only to the machinery of the court. The

case could be set back for a few moments, or longer if necessary, for the judge to consider a list of convictions when a man has pleaded guilty.
Again, my hon. and learned Friend said that from a practical point of view a judge must know a man's criminal record if he is to protect the man from certain questions which may be asked. My hon. and learned Friend gave the example of a defendent appearing in person who had exposed himself to cross-examination about his character. Whether a judge had such a man's history before him or not, surely he would prevent the accused from exposing himself to this possibility and, if necessary, dismiss the jury from the court while he told the accused what he was letting himself in for.
There again, it is purely the machinery of the court. If a defence counsel is appearing for the accused it merely needs a word from the judge which need not disclose anything of the man's previous character. He could pull up the defence counsel by saying, "Are you wise in pursuing this course?"
It seems not a matter of principle or necessity that a list should be before a judge. The Solicitor-General said that there is no harm in this and it is necessary that a judge should have this list. If it is necessary for judges to have such a list before him and read it, surely it is right that all judges should do so and not that some should set the list aside and not read it. The judge should study the list and it should be seen that he does so.
If it is right for a High Court judge to have such a list before him, why is it wrong that a magistrate should have it before him? It would be a great shock to the public to feel that a lay magistrate had a list of previous convictions of an accused before him when he was trying a case. I agree that there is a distinction, in that the magistrate has to decide a case whereas a trial judge merely sums up to a jury. But a case it not only decided on the evidence. It is tried on the evidence, but it is not only the decision of the court which depends on the evidence put before the court. The whole conduct of the trial should be based on the evidence before the court. In this case, there is


an unproven statement before an essential element of the court—the trial judge. The statement before him concerning the accused is not at that stage proved in any way.
A list is before the judge which has not been proved. Not only that, but it cannot be questioned by the accused at that stage. I suppose that it would be possible for the accused to ask that the jury withdraw, and then he could ask the judge what list of convictions the judge had before him, and intimate that he wished to question the list. But I have never heard of that being done. I doubt whether many accused persons know that a judge has such a list. That is the whole difficulty over this issue. Up to the present, the public has not known that it is an established custom for the judge to have the list of convictions of an accused before him. That is what I think is so distressing about the position and the reason why I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will give it serious consideration.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I wish to add a word to the argument because it seems that this is a very important matter and that the balance of argument so far as I have heard it, or know about it, is very heavily against the practice, which is admitted to have no statutory, or indeed other, authority.
The Solicitor-General corrected a statement which he is said to have made in Committee. I was not on the Committee and did not hear the statement. I have not read it, but I am prepared to make my point on the basis of what he told the House this afternoon, namely, that there are some judges who do not look at the list until it becomes necessary to look at it. It seems that that concedes a large part of the attack that is made upon the practice because it concedes that it is not always necessary. If it is not always necessary one is compelled to look a little deeper to see when it is necessary and when it is not.
There is a stage at which it becomes vitally necessary. That is the stage at the end of the trial when the jury, with no knowledge of the previous record of

the accused, has decided on the evidence as a whole, which it has heard, that the man is guilty. The judge then is not concerned with the trial of the prisoner any more. He is concerned with what it is appropriate to do with him, the jury having convicted him. It is obviously right and proper, indeed necessary, at that stage that the judge shall go very carefully into his antecedents, not only into those things he has done wrong, but also into any mitigating circumstances in his previous record. The judge must look at the thing as a whole and decide what in all the circumstances of a particular case is the right thing to do.
It is undoubtedly a necessary part of that assessment that he should know at that stage when it becomes really necessary to know it, but at that stage, as I pointed out in an intervention, there are certain safeguards against errors. If the prisoner admits the list of convictions the judge has, well and good. If he denies all of them or some of them, his denial might be accepted and the list corrected. If his denial is wholly or in part rejected, then it becomes just as much a duty of the prosecution to prove the conviction which is disputed as it is to prove any other fact in the case, the onus of proof being still upon the prosecution.
So there is some safeguard against unjustified prejudice, or an unjustified adverse conclusion. But we are not discussing here the right of the judge, or the necessity of the judge, to have a list of previous convictions after conviction. What is suggested is that it might be necessary at an earlier stage, in the course of the trial
I was a little astonished at some of the reasons which were given for that. It was suggested that it was necessary in some cases that the judge should have this knowledge in order to protect the accused from his own counsel. It is said that his counsel might be careless, his counsel might be ignorant, his counsel might be negligent, his counsel might not know that if he did certain things certain consequences might follow. If that is an argument for anything, it is an argument for the better legal education of barristers, not an argument for exposing the accused to a risk which the judge might see in time and correct, or might not.
It is said that perhaps the prisoner has not been completely candid with his counsel. I suppose it does frequently happen that he has not told his counsel about his previous convictions. Therefore, the counsel might be led into incurring risks out of ignorance of the facts and the judge can put it right. It seems that there is a very simple way of avoiding that difficulty. If it is someone's duty to prepare a list of convictions and provide the judge with it, he might, at the same time, provide the defence counsel with it so that the ignorance would be removed. Why not, if the judge knows it? Why not, if the judge does not know it? If the prosecution is undertaking to prove it at some stage in the case, even though only after conviction, no harm can be done by allowing defence counsel to know about it in advance.
If this is thought to be mistaken, and if the prisoner chooses to run the risk of not disclosing the facts to his counsel, he must be allowed to do so. His counsel, presumably, will have enough knowledge of the law to warn him in advance by saying, "Now you had better tell me of anything you have been convicted of before, because if you do not tell me that you have been convicted before I may, by ignorance of that fact, involve you in something which would be very damaging to your case. Please be frank." That is on the old system that there are two men in the world to whom a man should always tell the whole truth; one is his doctor and the other is his lawyer. If he does not do that, whatever are the consequences they are consequences he has chosen to ignore.
It is said that there are some difficulties, which, no doubt, are real. I am not pretending they are not, or that they are trivial. Of course they are not, but it is possible to take precautions against them. If we take precautions against them the difficulty of the partial necessity which the Solicitor-General saw disappears. Then it is said, "What does it matter, anyhow? It is not important. A judge will always be judicial, a judge will always be sensible, a judge will always be ready and always be able—which is a much more important point—to prevent his mind being influenced by knowledge of facts which nobody else knows and which are properly withheld from the jury."
The Attorney-General has been too long a successful practitioner of his profession to say seriously any such thing. Judges are not always sensible. They are human, like everyone else. They are as capable of error as anyone else. They are as capable of prejudice as anyone else. It is true that they do their best not to be and that they do their best in good faith to avoid falling into errors of that kind. They do their best to prevent their minds being influenced by matters which they know perfectly well they ought not to be influenced by. But all judges are not perfect, and even the perfect ones are not perfect all the time.
Those of us who have practised in this profession for any length of time know that to be true. It is no criticism of the judiciary or of our system of law to recognise that, like everybody else, judges are subject to human failings, human error and all the rest of it. Unless there is some over-riding necessity for his knowing—and I have tried to argue that such necessity as there is is not over-riding and is not such as cannot be guarded against—it is surely better, if there is no necessity or one can guard against the difficulties in some way, that the judge should be as ignorant of the previous record as the jury is. Surely that is very much better. I cannot believe that anyone would think otherwise.
I am aware of one murder case in which a conviction was obtained and a man executed, which conviction and which execution are now widely regarded as being wholly wrong. I do not want to identify the case, nor the judge—I will do so if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to; not here, but afterwards—but the man concerned had been previously convicted of murder and had been reprieved. The circumstances were unusual, but that happened. The judge knew it, the jury obviously did not.
I say that it is impossible to read the transcript of the evidence in that case, the judge's interventions and his handling in the summing-up of important disputed questions of fact in the course of the case without coming to the conclusion that it was very highly probable that, had the judge not known of the previous conviction, his handling of the case, his treatment of the witnesses and of the accused and his


summing-up would have been widely different and the conviction probably never obtained.
I do not say that this kind of thing happens very often, but while we retain this practice it is always possible. Therefore, I most sincerely beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think about it again.

5.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I am under the disadvantage that, unfortunately, I was not able to be present during the debate on this question in Committee, but I have read carefully through all that was said. I am under the further disadvantage that I was not able to hear the beginning of this debate, but I was present during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and, of course, I heard the speeches subsequent to that.
I quite agree that this Clause raises an important and a serious question. It is not a question of politics, but one raised with the object, which I am sure we all share, of securing the fairest possible trial; and that is my approach to the problem. I start with the proposition that I think we would all agree, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), that those who have to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused should not be furnished with particulars of any previous convictions.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) thought it right to state as a fact that in the case of Thompson the foreman of the jury had particulars of previous convictions. That, I know, was the allegation put forward by the convicted appellant, but there was no evidence to support it, and it was on that ground that the Court of Criminal Appeal and the House of Lords refused to entertain the appeal. They would not listen, and rightly, to allegations relating to what went on in the jury box.
I say to the hon. Member for Islington, East, and I hope that I carry the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with me, that I think we are on common ground when we say that those who have to determine the innocence or guilt of an accused, save

in the particular circumstances for which provision is made by Statute under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, should not be informed of the previous convictions of the accused, and if it is established that they are, then the conviction must be quashed.
I remember a case some years ago—I was concerned in it myself—where the accused had a number of previous convictions to which no reference at all was made by counsel, and then, just before the summing up started, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions turned to the jury and said, "Disregard the accused's previous record," and we all had to start again.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I only want to refer to what he said just now about the case of the jury to which my hon. Friend referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected it and the House of Lords refused a petition for leave to appeal because there was no evidence that the jury had the information. With great respect, that is not so. The indications were that there was evidence—I do not know how strong it was—that the ground for dismissing the appeal was that there was no evidence, but that neither the Court of Criminal Appeal nor the House of Lords, or anyone else, would listen to the evidence, however conclusive.

The Attorney-General: I am speaking from recollection now, that there was no evidence to establish the allegation, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the ground for dismissing the appeal was that the Court of Criminal Appeal could not go into what happened in a jury room. But even if that happened in that case, I think that we can start this discussion not on that case, but on the proposition that those who have to determine guilt or innocence must, except in special circumstances, where proper, not be allowed to have particulars of previous convictions.
I want to deal quite shortly with another point which the hon. Member for Islington, East made.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman think of any circumstances in which the foreman of


the jury could get hold of such a list? I cannot think of any.

Mr. S. Silverman: Yes, I can—the police could give it to them.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman alleges that the police could give it to them. I cannot think that that would happen or visualise any circumstances whereby a man called on to a jury panel would come to the jury box armed with a list of the previous convictions of the man who is to be put into the dock and whose identity he does not know. However that may be, may I deal with the point of the argument?

Mr. Fletcher: I raised this point because I have had a number of letters about it, and, in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, may I confirm, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, that it is quite clear that the Court of Criminal Appeal and the House of Lords refused leave to appeal on the ground that whatever the evidence might be they would not inquire into what happened in the jury box? It was alleged by counsel for the accused that one of the jurors had said that a number of jurors had been in favour of acquittal but that in the course of their deliberations the foreman of the jury had produced a list of the defendant's previous convictions and had thereby influenced the verdict.
On that allegation there was an application for a new trial, but the Court of Criminal Appeal and the House of Lords said that they would not inquire into what had happened. I raise the matter because this has added considerably to the disquiet felt on this subject since the matter was first ventilated in Committee.

The Attorney-General: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but he did not give way to me. However, I make no complaint about that.
Whatever the evidence may be, my complaint is that the hon. Gentleman put it forward as an established fact—I do not think that it was—but the appeal was dismissed on the ground which, I am glad to say, he has now made absolutely clear.
Let me come back to the proposition on which, I think, we all agree. I want to deal with the second point which the

hon. Member for Islington, East made when he said that there was often a difference between the list of convictions handed to the judge before the trial starts and that produced by the police after conviction. I do not know on what he founds himself when making that assertion. The procedure, in fact, is that the list is checked with the police before it goes to the judge. I have now had some years' experience, I am sorry to say, in the criminal courts, but I must say that I have never known a case of any such difference being brought to light. I cannot see how he would know if there had been. But that is beside the point. It does not frequently happen, certainly not in my view nor in my experience.
The point of substance here is not whether the judge should have a list of previous convictions handed to him before he passes sentence, but whether, during a trial, there should be a list available for him to refer to.
I do not want to repeat the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I would only say this. I have listened to all that has been said, our objective being to secure the fairest possible trial. In my view, that is best secured by the judge having the list available for his use if he wants to use it. That does not mean that it is necessary for him to read it in every case. If, however, a question of character, for example, arises, it should be there for the judge to be able to refer to.
I was told of an actual case today which illustrates the need in a rather graphic form. As the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) pointed out, although it is easy to criticise defence counsel, it is often due to the conduct of inexperienced counsel that these problems arise. I was told of a case in which a man was charged with rape. Defending counsel asked questions which, clearly, would put his character in issue. He asked his questions and prosecuting counsel then asked for leave to cross-examine, the jury being asked to retire, as to character.
The judge replied, quite firmly, "Of course, under the Statute, you are entitled, in view of this line of examination by counsel for the defence, to cross-examine as to character, but I am not


letting you do so, because if you did, it would be prejudicial to the accused." The judge was able to take that attitude because he knew from looking at the list that was available to him that there was a previous conviction of rape, the very offence with which the accused was charged. These cases and these points occur from time to time. That is why it is my sincere belief, although others may disagree, that it is advisable in the interests of fair trial that this information should be available to the presiding judge, so that he can see that the accused gets a fair trial.
The case which is put against that view is the case, which can be argued, that the mere fact that the judge has the list available and looks at it may colour and prejudice his mind in the course of the summing-up. This practice has been in existence probably for almost 100 years. So far, I have never heard any serious complaint about it. Although it may not be known to lawyers who do not practise in the criminal field, it is widely known as a practice which has been carried on. If it really is as wrong as has been suggested, I have no doubt that valid criticism would have been advanced long before now.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred, in particular, to a murder case with which he was familiar. If there is a hostile summing-up, and sometimes it is only right that the summing-up should be somewhat hostile, because it must reflect the balance of the evidence, and if it arises in a case in which one knows also that there has been a previous conviction of murder, it is easy to infer in such a case that it was that knowledge that influenced the summing-up. But it does not necessarily follow.
If a judge conducts the case in an improper fashion and does it in such a way as to make it unfair to the accused, whether or not that be due to his having read particulars of previous convictions, the Court of Criminal Appeal would unhesitatingly interfere, and often does, because of the mishandling or misdirection by the trial judge.
I know that views on this subject differ. I am as keen as any hon. Member opposite to secure the fairest possible trial. In my belief, however, it would in many cases be a disadvantage to the accused

if this information was no longer available to Her Majesty's judges who are presiding. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that it should never be available to those who have to determine guilt or innocence. In this connection, one cannot compare the position of a presiding judge, where there is a jury, with the position of magistrates at petty sessions. In my belief, it is desirable to retain this facility and we therefore ask the House to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I was hesitant whether I should intervene in the debate. The new Clause is put forward in the names of six hon. Members on this side of the House and has been supported on this side and also by one Member on the other side of the House. I agree—it is not often that I do—with the speeches of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
I have sat throughout the debate. I know the arguments; I knew of them before. I know that there might be objections to the practice presently carried on, but from my experience I consider that the balance is in favour of the present practice. It has endured for 100 years. It is useless for my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to pretend that he did not know about this practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] My hon. Friend practised in the courts in Liverpool, as I did. It must have been obvious to a beginner at the Bar, or in the solicitors' branch of the profession, that in criminal cases the judge has such a list. My hon. Friend was lacking in observation from the earliest days of his practice if he was not aware of that fact.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. I have, of course, always known about this practice. I have always objected to it, for the reasons I gave today, and I am taking this, the first opportunity I have ever had in the House of Commons, of stating those objections.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am surprised to hear that explanation from my hon. Friend. He has been a Member of the House since 1935, he takes the keenest interest in the administration of justice and he must have had many opportunities—a Ten Minutes Rule Bill, for example, and all kinds of methods—of


ventilating this matter, but to my knowledge this is the first time that he has ever ventilated it.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend is being a little unjust. No doubt, he was carried away by the enthusiasm of his argument. It is true that I have been here a long time and that I use my opportunities to the best of my ability, but the number of opportunities that a Member has for introducing a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule are limited and there is always somebody else who wants to do something else.
There have been only two occasions on which the matter could conceivably have been raised. One was during the passage of the consolidating Criminal Justice Act, 1948, in which I was involved with something much more important, and the other is the Bill which now has its Report stage in the House. I should have liked to have been a member of the Standing Committee. I would have supported my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) on this matter if I had been, but, unfortunately, the Committee of Selection thought otherwise.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The House has listened to that long explanation—

Mr. S. Silverman: Well, do not make any more false points.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I can only say that I think that the balance is in favour of the present practice. I speak as one who, for twelve years, has from time to time, in the capacity of a judge, had to address a jury. I have had this information myself and I consider it invaluable. It helps one to protect a prisoner rather than the reverse. It is so different from the position mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), that of the magistrates. The magistrates decide the case. They listen to the evidence. They certainly should not have this information. In the case We are discussing, however, the decision is taken by the jury, and every judge points out in the course of his summing-up that they are the masters of the facts. I do not think that I have

ever presided at a trial at which the defending counsel has not gone out of his way, in addressing the jury, to look up at me and say, "It does not really matter what the recorder says. It does not matter what the prosecution say. You are the masters of the facts."

Mr. S. Silverman: That is what we are saying today.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Defending counsel always says that.

Mr. Weitzmann: Would my hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether he never has on any single occasion had his mind affected in summing-up before the jury by knowing of the convictions of the accused?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: In my case, I have had my mind affected. When I have a trial of a man who pleads not guilty, whom I know to be a hardened criminal, my mind is directed carefully and conscientiously in his favour and not against him. That is where the great mistake is made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in this case. The judge is a trained lawyer. He is supposed to be capable of dismissing biassed ideas from his mind. In civil cases, it often happens that when the judge is told something he says, "It does not matter, because I can exclude that from my mind", and he does. In criminal cases, however, the judge is there to see that justice is done. He is there to hold the balance.
In my experience, there are judges such as my hon. Friend referred to, and I grant it. From time to time, we have all suffered from them. No one who has practised at the Bar, or in the profession of solicitor, has not from time to time come across the judge who has pone off the rails. On balance, however, which is what we are considering, I think that it is for the benefit of the accused person that the judge should be armed with this knowledge for the protection of the accused.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 203.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[5.33 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bence, Cyril


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Awbery, Stan
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Benson, Sir George




Blackburn, F,
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Blyton, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bottomley, A.
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, Frank
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Boyden, James
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, James
Jones. Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
Lubbock, E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mclnnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fletcher, Eric
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E,)
Timmons, John


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Manuel, Archie C.
Wade, Donald


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp Charles
Warbey, William


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gooch, E. G.
Mendelson, J. J,
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Milne, Edward
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mort, D. L.
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Moyle, Arthur



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Healey, Denis
Owen, Will
Mr. Redhead.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Sir John


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H. P. G.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Allason, James
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Goodhew, Victor


Barber, Anthony
Collard, Richard
Gough, Frederick


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, A. E.
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cordle, John
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bell, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Berkeley, Humphry
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bidgood, John C.
Critchley, Julian
Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bitten, John
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hastings, Stephen


Bishop, F. P.
Dance, James
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Black, Sir Cyril
de Ferranti, Basil
Hendry, Forbes


Bourne-Arton, A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hiley, Joseph


Box, Donald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Braine, Bernard
Doughty, Charles
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshwae)


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duncan, Sir James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R.
Eden, John
Holland, Philip


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hollingworth, John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Emery, Peter
Hopkins, Alan


Buck, Antony
Errington, Sir Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bullard, Denys
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fell, Anthony
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Burden, F. A.
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jackson, John


Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)







Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Teeling, Sir William


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Temple, John M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Leavey, J. A.
Peel, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Leburn, Gilmour
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peyton, John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pott, Percivall
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Loveys, Walter H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior, J. M. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


McAdden, Stephen
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


MacArthur, Ian
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


McLaren, Martin
Pym, Francis
Walder, David


Macleod, Rt. Hn lain (Enfield, W.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Walker, Peter


MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wall, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley R.
Roots, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maltland, Sir John
Russell, Ronald
Whitelaw, William


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Marshall, Douglas
Shaw, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Shepherd, William
Wise, A. R.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smithers, Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Stratton
Speir, Rupert
Woollam, John


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)



Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stodart, J. A.



Nabarro, Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Storey, Sir Samuel
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and




Mr. Frank Pearson.

Clause 4.—(COUNTY AND BOROUGH SESSIONS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out "any case "and to insert:
the case of a person committed to the court for trial".

Clause 4 (5) enables a legally qualified chairman of quarter sessions to sit alone in certain circumstances without the assistance of lay justices. This gave rise to some discussion in Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General gave an undertaking with regard to it, which is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the First Sitting in Committee.

The Amendment goes further than the undertaking, so I hope that it will be acceptable to the House. If the Amendment is accepted, chairmen of quarter sessions in the absence of lay justices will not be able to deal with appeals against sentence alone, nor with bastardy appeals, nor with applications for bail or for costs, nor with such matters as highways or corn rents. The effect of the Amendment will be to restrict the provision narrowly to the class of case in which the greatest difficulty in securing the attendance of a lay magistrate from time to time may arise; that is to say, cases of persons committed to the court for what may be a long trial.

I should like to make it clear that there is no desire in taking this power, restricted as it will be by the Amendment, to minimise the importance of the work and of the part played in the administration of justice by lay magistrates. However, in long trials there is sometimes great difficulty in securing the attendance of magistrates. It is, therefore, right to take this power, which I hope will not have to be used on many occasions. As the Amendment goes further than the undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend and as the undertaking was itself acceptable to the Committee, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the House.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: We on this side of the House welcome the Amendment, which arises from a suggestion made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacCol). It is fair to point out that we were critical of the whole of subsection (5). This is the one respect in the Bill in which the Government have departed from the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee. We were criticad of it for that reason and because we doubted whether it was wise to give chairmen of quarter sessions the power in any circumstances to sit


alone. We thought that it was derogatory of the status of magistrates and undesirable.
I am, therefore, very glad that the Attorney-General has gone slightly further than was promised in Committee to remove some of the undesirable features of the Clause as it originally stood. We support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end to insert:
and of the justices sitting and so qualified one is a man and one a woman".
The Amendment is in response to an undertaking I gave the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in Committee that we would consider again whether it is practical to add to the qualifications of persons constituting a court of county quarter sessions hearing an appeal from a juvenile court. Clause 4 (7) already provides that, so far as practicable, not less than half the justices sitting to hear an appeal from a juvenile court shall have juvenile court experience.
The Amendment will further provide, again so far as practicable, that members of the court with juvenile experience shall include a man and a woman. This may give rise to some difficulty, because, for reasons with which I will not weary the House, this means that there will have to be in most cases three magistrates rather than two sitting, because the chairman is very rarely qualified to sit on the juvenile court panel.
Nevertheless, we have made the inquiries we said we would make and have come to the conclusion that the case of the hon. Member for Widnes is a good one and that even the smaller counties, which was the fear we had in our mind, will be able to man the appeals in this way. This being so, it is obviously right that there should be a woman in these cases, since there must be a woman when the case is heard originally.
The hon. Member for Widnes has expressed to me his regret at not being here, which I quite understand, because he is engaged on public duties upstairs. He has also expressed himself pleased with

the Amendment, and we are happy to be of service to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(REMUNERATION OF THE RECORDERS, CHAIRMEN OF COUNTY SESSIONS AND THEIR DEPUTIES AND ASSISTANTS.)

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Maryle-bone): I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out "the city of".
The last line of Clause 8 refers to
the remuneration of the recorder of the City of London.
There is no such position as the Recorder of the City of London. His correct title is the Recorder of London. The Amendment merely corrects what is in the Bill so that the remuneration of a recorder can be paid to a person with the correct description.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This is, of course, a very important Amendment. We, in our innocence, have adopted the title of this important judicial officer from the Central Criminal Court Act, 1834, Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, and, perhaps more important than those two, Section 12 of the Mayors and City of London Courts Act, 1920. I say more important because that was a Private Act, promoted by the City authorities themselves, and it was they who chose this title. We, in our innocence, adopted at, enshrined it on the Statute Book, and now the City authorities are saying that it is a wrong title, although they initiated it.
At a time when we are told that the City's patience with the Government, and its loyalty, is stretched to breaking point we do not wish to do anything that would in any way increase those anxieties and tensions. For that reason, after thinking about this most carefully to see whether it would conflict with other statutes and if it would have all sorts of repercussions which could be most unfortunate both for the City and the administration of the law, we have, after this analysis, come to the conclusion that it would be safe to ease the acute anxieties of the City by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: In the matter of the reform of London local government we are very anxious to curtail and restrict


the privileges that have existed for so long in the City of London. It is one of our major criticisms of the proposals being sponsored by the Government that whereas they are making more general reforms in the whole area of London they are devoted to preserving the privileges of the City of London which, we think, are wholly undesirable and out of date.
I am glad, therefore, to have the support of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) on this occasion. Apparently, he shares our view that the privileges of the City of London are completely obsolete and out of date and I hope that we shall have his further support when the details of the London local government Bill come forward in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(COMMITTAL TO ASSIZES OR QUARTER SESSIONS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, after "may", to insert:
with his and the prosecutor's consent and".

This Amendment may be discussed with the following one, in page 7, line 15, which is of a drafting character.

Their effect is to require the consent of both the prosecution and the defence to be obtained before a case is committed for trial under this Clause to a sitting of assizes or quarter sessions already in progress. This makes an improvement in the Bill. The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee, although it had, in fact, already been drawn to our attention by the Bar Council and the Law Society; and we have given consideration to it.

It might prejudice the defence if the accused could be committed to a current assizes against his will. This provision removes any possibility of that happening. Equally, if one is to require the consent of the defence to this course being taken, it is only fair and proper that the consent of the prosecution should also be obtained. This makes an improvement to the Bill and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for raising this matter in Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise to express my gratitude to the Attorney-General for pursuing the assurance which was given in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 15, leave out "that person" and insert "him".

Clause 15.—(COMMITTAL TO MORE CONVENIENT COURT.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move in page 8, line 10, after "conviction", to insert:
or against an order made on the conviction".
We thought that we had this Clause in a proper form in enabling an appeal against conviction to go to the convenient court to which a person had been committed for sentence. We thought that that was really all that was required, but since the Bill was drafted there has been a decision in the Divisional Court which has drawn attention to the position where a person has been committed to quarter sessions for sentence and where an appeal may lie not only against conviction at the magistrates' court, but also against any order made upon conviction, for example, disqualification against driving.
In the Divisional Court case the decision was to the effect that such an order was not part of the sentence, so that a magistrates' court could properly deal with an offender both by making such an order and by committing him to quarter sessions before sentence. Although it is not technically part of a sentence, such a matter is a sentence within the meaning of Section 83 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which confers a right of appeal. Thus an offender may be convicted at the magistrates' court and disqualified from driving and sent to quarter sessions for sentence. He may appeal against his conviction and disqualification.
It is clearly convenient that the same court should be able to deal with both appeals. The Amendment will secure that this can be done in cases where an appeal is not to the ordinary court but to a convenient court of quarter sessions.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fifth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 33, column 3, after "In", insert "Part I of".—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

5.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I think that the House will agree that this is both an important Bill and a good one. It is based on the recommendations of what we call the Streatfeild Committee, which was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Hon. Members will not expect me, at this stage, to go any further into the provisions of the Bill, or say anything more about its detail, for it was not only fully considered on Second Reading but received a very thorough and careful investigation in Committee.
Although altered in some respects during its passage in Committee and on Report, it really is, in substance, very similar to what it was when introduced. Its main effect will be, we hope, to reduce the time during which a prisoner will be in custody awaiting trial, to reduce the time between committal in the magistrates' court and trial at assizes and quarter sessions and it may be to the convenience of all practitioners to know that it is the intention of the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Probate and Divorce and Admiralty Division to publish the dates of assizes for each calendar year in the early summer of the preceding year. It is hoped that quarter sessions and recorders will follow this example, for it would be very convenient to all concerned to have long notice of the dates of sittings.
During the Committee stage and again today we have had interesting discussions and debates on subjects which are not included in the Bill. One of those subjects which was discussed in Committee was the important question of the publicity of committal proceedings which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I think that it would be out of order for me to say anything now on that interesting subject, for I can find nothing in the Bill which touches it to enable me

to do so and keep in order. I can only hope that the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on this subject in Committee will not escape attention.
Throughout the debate on Second Reading and, I am assured, throughout the discussions in Committee—which I was, unfortunately, unable to attend—discussion has been not only amiable, but constructive, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks and appreciation not only to the members of the Streatfeild Committee for the hard work which they have done and which has been so productive, but also to all those who served on the Committee and who have taken part in our debates and joined in seeking to make this as good a Bill as it could be made. It does not look so very momentous and it may not hit the headlines in the daily Press, but I think that it will mark a notable advance in the administration of justice. I express my thanks to all those who have facilitated its passage.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am genuinely sorry to intrude a dubious or contentious note into what up to now has seemed a very happy little ceremony. But this is the only opportunity I have been able to take of raising matters which I have had in mind, because I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Committee and did not wish to be, because I was engaged on other duties on a Royal Commission which would have considerably clashed with those of attending the Committee.
However, there is a good deal in the Bill which Professor Parkinson might look at with some anxiety and wonder whether hon. Members had all the facts before them. Without wishing to frustrate some of the useful Amendments to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has properly referred, I hope that I may phrase some kind of opposition largely on questions of doubt. No one has a greater respect for our judicial procedure than I, or for those who in the higher capacity administer the law. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should ask Mr. Bedeau to look at the Law Courts, or ask my old friend the former Member for Reading, Mr. Mikardo, to undertake a time and motion study of them.
But the House should question some of the propositions which are put to us, often with no evidence. Time after time Bills come to the House proposing the appointment of more judges. We are told that we need more county court judges, more High Court judges, more commissioners of divorce, and so on. Indeed, as recently as 1960 we passed an Act to increase the number of High Court judges. I do not recall, during the years I have been in the House, a single occasion when a Law Officer of the Crown of either party has told the House that the Government have found that there are jobs to be abolished and jobs in which nothing is now being done. Once a recorder, always a recorder. Once a town has a recorder, so the appointment goes on, and bit by bit the numbers increase.
It was reported only this week that a divorce case bad occupied 29 days of the time of a High Court judge. I have never myself heard the act of fornication referred to as one of undue length, or even of any very great complexity. Yet it seems that in this case the single question raised in a 29 days' trial was whether a lady had committed adultery with a named gentleman more than once. Everyone knows why the case took 29 days—because it concerned very rich people. A very great deal of public money was consumed in this way and we are entitled to question the figures.
If it is assumed that a judge sits for five days a week and for 40 weeks a year, which is a rough estimate, he sits for a total of 200 days a year. It is a very exacting task. Those of us who have to sit here listening to the speeches from lawyers on either side of the House can appreciate how difficult it must be to continue to do that and to maintain one's reason for 200 days every year. But it is done. Now, we are told, the output of the divorces of rich persons may be reduced to 6·9 a year for one High Court judge—if a judge sits for an average of 200 days and each case lasts 29 days.
At that rate, we should need several thousand more judges. Fortunately, ox unfortunately, even in this property-owning democracy not everyone is rich enough to be able to brief counsel for 29 days. Even the expenditure on petrol required for the three Rolls-Royces which

were used every day for the three parties must have been considerable.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has referred to rich litigants, but he will appreciate that legal aid cases could last just as long as that divorce.

Mr. Weitzman: I know of more than one case taking 21 days.

Mr. Hale: In theory, they could, but if they did in fact we would have to do something about it. If there is a legal aid case which has lasted 29 days, I would be glad to hear about it.
Any case may raise a point of great legal importance and might last for a long time. For instance, I dare say that there would be fairly contentious litigation over a patent for perpetual motion and it might take some time. But in a divorce case the only question which really matters is the custody of the children, and that is left to be decided in chambers.
No one asks whether we need this sort of court, or whether it need function. I recall that before the war I had some words with the magistrates of the town of Burton-on-Trent. In, possibly, a moment of temporary indignation I announced that I would not allow them to try the next case in which I appeared, but that I would exercise my right on behalf of my client to have it tried at quarter sessions. I had no idea what would result from that unpremeditated action.
There had not been a quarter sessions in Burton-on-Trent for years. Although there was a recorder, he was a very respectable don at Oxford and he had not the slightest intention of sitting at Burton Quarter Sessions. However, there had to be a quarter sessions, so he appointed a deputy recorder to sit for the sessions. As this was in the days of the grand jury, a grant jury had to be convened with all the panoply and paraphernalia of javelin men, and so on, all assembled at Burton-on-Trent. The deputy recorder informed the mayor that it was the custom to give a luncheon, so a lunch was laid on and invitations were sent out.
The night before, I interviewed my client again and I decided to plead guilty. The result was that, this being


the only case at the sessions, the sessions lasted five minutes and the mayor bitterly complained that he had had a lunch prepared for people most of whom were not going to stay. Some temporary unpopularity resulted for myself. I believe that there is still a recorder at Burton-on-Trent, although I do not know whether he is very active. It may be that conditions in Burton-on-Trent have altered and that there has been a desirable increase in crime, so that there is something for someone to do.
The reason that our judges are grossly overworked is not so much because of 29-day divorce cases as because the House of Commons continues to pass ridiculous legislation, much of it without proper consideration, at two o'clock in the morning—perhaps we should cut that down a little and say about 11.30.
I think that it would be appropriate if I gave one example of how the process works, starting with the dog and finishing with the judicial sausages. I was attracted by a recent decision of the Lord Chief Justice of England, a very learned decision which everyone should read with profit. It was a case concerning Victor Value Limited and mock salmon cutlets. That started with the fish cakes Order, 1950, for which I obviously share a measure of responsibility, because I was either here or not here. I do not recall a prolonged debate on that occasion, but we all know what must have happened and realise that such an Order would not have been produced without very considerable study and preparation.
No doubt, some years before a lady had written to say that there was sawdust in her fishcakes, and there would be a Departmental inquiry into the nutritive value of sawdust, with an adverse conclusion. Then would come the proposals for the measure, the deputations from the trawler owners, and the note to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to remember the former mayor of Great Grimsby, a lifelong member of the Conservative Association who had paid his subscription from 1945 to 1951. There would be photographs in "he agricultural Press of potatoes rotting in the fields and notices saying

that fishcakes should have their appropriate percentage of potatoes as well as fish. We did not say anything about potatoes. We merely said that the fishcakes should contain 35 per cent. fish.
The Order was passed, and I am sure that that night 300 or 400 of us went home feeling assured that henceforth fishcakes would be free from dubiety and criticism and that Chose addicted to this somewhat peculiar form of nutriment would be duly gratified. Then in 1955 the House passed the Food and Drugs Act.
All went well until a few weeks ago when an inspector of some sort, presumably a food inspector or testing officer, found mock salmon cutlets being exhibited by Victor Value Ltd., provided by some other alliterative firm, Piper Products Poole Ltd., which had manufactured the mock salmon cutlets. The sum of 4s. 3d. was expended on the purchase of six of them. They were duly examined and a report was furnished to the effect that they contained only 30 per cent. fish. In the result, the justices refused to convict and the case went to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice who sat with Mr. Justice Ashworth and one other High Court judge. Fascinating arguments ensued. Previously, it had been decided that mock cream need not contain cream. [Laughter.] This is reasonable. Mock cream implies some absence of cream. I am not for a moment trying to be facetious. This is our responsibility. The job of members of the judiciary is to try cases which are brought before them, and they have no option but to apply all their ability to the task.
As I have said, it was decided that mock cream need not contain cream. It might be argued that mock salmon cutlets need not contain salmon. But it is going rather far to say that mock salmon outlets need not contain fish.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into greater detail than is necessary on this the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: The last thing that I wish to do is to introduce any spirit of facetiousness about the performance of


judicial duties. I am trying to limit myself purely to time. I know that in other matters I am tempted to be a little irreverend. When confronted with imposing façades, whether it be of the Parthenon or of Miss Jayne Mansfield, I look at them with dubiety and almost incredulity.
Their Lordships decided that mock salmon cutlets came within the circum-ambience of fishcakes and, therefore, should contain 35 per cent. fish, and the case was remitted back to the magistrates with a direction to convict.
On the same day, one of the problems which Parliament has left untouched for 102 years arose. It concerned the case of the unfortunate lady who sought nullification of her marriage on the ground of non-consummation. The marriage was celebrated at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the husband being domiciled in Scotland. He acquired a new domicile in the Middle East, leaving her virtually on the steps of the church or registry office, or whatever it was.
This case occupied the attention of seven of their Lordships in their Lordships' House for some considerable time. It was an important case, and a rather terrible case. There had been a decision in 1860 to the effect that, if a person was married in England, then in the case of a void marriage and probably of a voidable one the question could be tested in England. Their Lordships decided against that by five to one and in a sense reversed a decision which had been acted on since 1860. They certainly laid down some new law. The unhappy lot of the lady seeking dissolution of marriage is that she can start the whole case again in Scotland, and may lose again on the defence that her husband is now domiciled in the Middle East.
I know that it is easy to criticise and intensely difficult to put these things right. But surely the time has come when we should abolish the domiciliary distinction as between Scotland and England and provide a concurrent jurisdiction. However, I should, no doubt, be getting near the bounds of order if I were to pursue that matter further.
I do not believe in legislation. I sincerely believe that if we repealed 90 per cent. of the Acts on the Statute Book the world would be a better place. I

do not believe in litigation. I do not believe in unnecessary prosecutions. I do not really worry whether a lady finds a bit of sawdust in her fishcakes. If she buys bad fishcakes from one shop, she can try another shop. There is a lot of grandfatherly and grandmotherly legislation. I know that the Attorney-General exercises many and diverse duties. I imagine his office is one of the most exacting in the Government. Some of his duties are judicial, some as an advocate, some quasi-judicial and some advisory. I have no complaint about the way he exercises his duties. But, with all due respect to him, surely the time has come when we should look at the criminal law of this country and even at the procedure of the courts.
I would not want to alter things which work well unless there is a valid and effective reason for so doing. But this hotch-potch of mixed courts, divisional courts, various appellate courts, with an appeal lying from one court in this direction and from the same court in another direction, with rehearings before one court and no possibility of a rehearing before another court, presents a very diverse and not easily understood picture.
Having said that, I am prepared, with reluctance, to permit the Bill to pass. However, I hope that I remain here long enough to participate in a debate on some of the issues which are involved and which are of importance.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: There may be a great deal of unnecessary legislation, but the fact is that we have Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book and the law must be administered. It is far better that we should have a number of judges who may not be doing anything rather than that a person should have to wait a long time to come to trial. I congratulate the Government on acting with such expedition in implementing the Streatfeild Committee's recommendations.
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for what he said about committal proceedings. I hope that the Government will act with like expedition in honouring the undertaking which they gave in Committee to make a comprehensive study of the value and nature of committal proceedings and take action as soon as they can on that matter.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I should like to detain the House for a moment to express my support for the Bill and my appreciation of it. I arrived in the House just at the moment when the Question was being put on the constitution of the appeal panel in cases arising from juvenile courts. I think that the Bill has been improved by that introduction, because it is desirable that in cases of appeals from juvenile courts there should be women and men on the appeal panel. I am glad that the Government have been able to meet that point because I realise that there could quite easily have been some good reason for their not doing so. I think that this has made it a much better Bill.
This is a good example of the working of a very efficient Committee, producing a good Report, followed by quick action by the Government and careful review in the Committee upstairs which has made the Bill in some detail rather better.
The Attorney-General paid tribute to the Streatfeild Committee and the work that it had done. I should like to support him in that view. I think that the Streatfeild Committee was a remarkable Committee. Although the terms of reference were not exactly thrilling and exciting, it managed to do what many Committees fail to do. It produced a very realistic, warm and human document which will, I think, in many ways produce a revolution in the sentencing policy in the higher courts. This is particularly so in Part B of the Report. Provided that it is carried out administratively with the same vigour with which this Bill is carrying out the legislative parts of the recommendations, I think that we can look forward to very considerable improvements in the way in which the courts are dealing with the problems before them in the disposal of cases and particularly in sentencing.
I should like to make this further point. It is, perhaps, a happy coincidence that the Bill should be going through the House at this time, because it happens that Baroness Wootton is sitting for the last time in a juvenile court and this Report is shot through with her very deep insight into these problems, and her vigorous and commanding personality. She combines her

very great academic position with deep practical understanding of her work as a magistrate, and I think that her membership of this Committee has played a very big part in the production of the Report on which this Bill is based. Therefore, I am glad to commend the Bill for Third Reading.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that it is necessary for me to say more than a few words on the concluding stage of this important and valuable Bill. I spoke at some length on Second Reading when we expressed our thanks and congratulations to the Attorney-General for the expedition with which the Bill was introduced after the Streatfeild Committee had reported. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). In some ways I think that it is a model piece of legislation based upon an admirable, very workable, sensible Report of an Inter-Departmental Committee. I think that everyone associated with carrying these reforms through so expeditiously is entitled to a measure of thanks and congratulations.
I believe that the proposals in the Bill will make a very valuable contribution to expedition in bringing accused persons to trial. I think that reforms were long overdue and that it was a blot on our administration of criminal justice that so many accused persons remained in prison awaiting trial for so long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out, there is a great deal that is cumbersome and anomalous because of the historical clauses in our criminal system. It is most welcome that steps have been taken which will enable the assize system and the system of quarter sessions to be modernised to deal with criminal cases far more expeditiously.
Discussion has taken place in Second Reading and in Committee with regard to matters which are outside the scope of the Bill as we now find it, and which it would be difficult within the bounds of order to make detailed comment on during Third Reading. We have, however, in the course of our proceedings had some valuable debates, and although we have not always been able to carry the Government with us, we


hope that some of the suggestions which have been made will bear fruit.
We welcome, and I acknowledge, what the Attorney-General said about the Tucker Committee's Report. We look forward to the time, which we hope will not be long distant, when there will be a thorough-going overhaul of the present system of committal proceedings. By this Bill we are giving the Lord Chancellor power to appoint five new judges, and I was glad to read today an announcement by the Lord Chancellor that at last a start is to be made in reconstructing the Royal Courts of Justice and providing additional accommodation there.
This is one of the points to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) drew attention on Second Reading. I am glad to find that it has already borne fruit. It is no use appointing additional judges and expecting the work of justice, whether civil justice or criminal justice, to be carried on with the same degree of dignity or efficiency unless additional accommodation is provided in the Strand for new courts and for the new judges.
We have had discussion about the valuable work being done throughout the country by lay magistrates, and I should like to pay my tribute to them. I was disturbed by one of the Clauses which remains in the Bill which will enable the chairmen of quarter sessions to try certain cases without lay justices being present, and I hope that it will not be necessary to resort to that provision to any extent. I hope that if there is any risk of lay justices not being available to sit with the chairmen of quarter sessions the Government will come to the conclusion that the real remedy would be to appoint more lay justices. I know that opinions differ about that.
There has been a good deal of criticism in recent years about the limited field from which the law magistracy is recruited. This is a matter which, I think, deserves the early attention of the Government, particularly when, as now, we are imposing more important duties

on magistrates and giving power to magistrates' courts to deal with classes of offenders over which previously they had no jurisdiction. I think that it is a necessary corollary to the Bill that attention should be given to the criticisms which have been made in recent years about the number of lay justices available to do the work expected of them and in regard to the field of activity from which they are selected.
I echo the sentiments expressed by a number of hon. Members by drawing attention to the desire of all of us that swift and effective administrative action should be taken to implement the recommendations in Part II of the Streatfeild Report, because, just as it is important to expedite the way in which accused persons are brought to trial, so it is no less important, and may be more important, to improve the technique, and to obtain the information necessary for an improved technique, involved in sentencing criminals and ensuring that the most appropriate form of sentence is inflicted in each case. It is recognised that this requires a great deal more care and attention from all courts than it has received in the past.
This duty, in turn, will throw a great burden on the probation officers throughout the country who, as a result of the provisions of the Bill and of the Streafeild Report, will have considerable additional duties of great responsibility placed upon them. I doubt whether, either in numbers or in capacity, the probation officer service as at present staffed is qualified to deal with the duties which the Government and the public will expect of it. I hope that steps will be taken to recognise the enhanced status which probation officers are given throughout the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee and that they will be given full numerical and other support to enable them to discharge their duties.
With those words, I join my hon. Friends in cordially commending the Bill to the House for Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.31 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is very short and its purpose is simple. It is to enable the United Kingdom to join in the scheme which the International Monetary Fund announced last January—and the purpose of that scheme is to enable the Fund to acquire additional resources if they should be needed. The details of the scheme are set out in a Decision of the Executive Directors of the Fund. This has been published by the Fund, and for the convenience of the House it has been reproduced in a White Paper Cmnd. 1656. The same White Paper also contains an exchange of letters, to which I shall refer in a moment, setting out an understanding between the countries which are expected to join in the scheme, about the way in which it will operate.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already referred to the I.M.F. scheme in the debate which took place on 18th December, and as a good deal of information about it has already been published, I will not delay the House unnecessarily in sketching the background. The House will recall that the I.M.F. found it necessary in September, 1958, at its meeting in New Delhi, to seek an increase in its total resources and that this was done by raising members' quotas. The increase in the United Kingdom quota was authorised by the International Bank and Monetary Fund Act, 1959. Since then the Fund has been very active in giving financial assistance from its increased resources. The gross drawings in 1961 of 2½ billion dollars were at the highest annual level in its history.
There are two other developments, in particular, which have led to this proposal for putting additional resources at the disposal of the Fund. The first is the change in the pattern of international payments. In the early days of the I.M.F. almost all Fund drawings were taken in dollars, because the dollar, as

well as being a reserve and trading currency, was also the strongest currency. In recent years, however, the United States' balance of payments has been in continuing deficit, while the financial strength of some European countries has greatly increased. If the I.M.F. is to make the most effective contribution to international monetary balance, it is desirable that funds should flow through the I.M.F. from countries in surplus to those in deficit. This means that countries requiring assistance from the I.M.F. should draw the currencies of countries having strong balance of payments and reserve positions. It follows that although the Fund may at any given moment have considerable reserves of convertible currencies, it may be desirable temporarily for some of these currencies not to be used.
To put this in terms of figures, the Fund's resources now total about 15 billion dollars, of which 2 billion dollars is in gold and 6½ billion dollars in the major convertible currencies. Of this 6½ billion dollars, however, nearly 5 billion dollars is in dollars or in sterling and only about 1 billion dollars is in the currencies of the six Common Market countries. It is clear from these figures that the Fund has a real problem in finding enough suitable currencies for drawing whenever either one or both of the countries with reserve currencies, the United States and the United Kingdom, is in deficit.
Moreover, it is vital for the defence of the international monetary system that the I.M.F. should be able to give assistance to the reserve currencies whenever that becomes necessary. It proved possible last summer, as hon. Members know, to arrange a very large drawing for the United Kingdom. It is clear, however, that the Fund would have great difficulty in financing from its normal resources a drawing by the United States up to the full amount of its drawing right. Any such operation would seriously weaken the Fund's ability to finance other drawings at the level reached in the last year or so. I do not suggest that this dilemma will necessarily arise, but it is certainly a function of the Fund to anticipate it.
The second development, which I can deal with briefly, which has led to this proposal to put additional resources at the disposal of the Fund is the progress


which has been made in recent years towards greater convertibility of currencies and the lifting of restrictions on payments. It is now very much easier for substantial movements of funds to take place quickly from one country to another, and such movements can affect particularly the two reserve currencies. If the international monetary system is to function satisfactorily, it is important that the Fund should be seen to be adequately equipped to cushion the effects of these short-term movements.
I now turn briefly to the scheme itself. The Articles of Agreement of the I.M.F. already give the Fund power to borrow. The Fund might, however, need to raise the extra funds quickly, and some of the countries concerned had no statutory powers to make loans to the Fund. The United Kingdom was one. If the negotiation of loans had been left until the need arose there might well have been considerable delay. Moreover, there is obviously great advantage in establishing in advance that the Fund will be able to call on the additional reserves when required.
For both these reasons, it seems better to set up a scheme under which the major countries would now put themselves in a position to lend up to specified amounts and on standard terms if and when borrowing by the Fund became necessary. The Managing Director of the Fund, therefore, has negotiated maximum amounts, and standard terms and conditions for the loans with the ten Governments concerned, and these are embodied in the Decision which is set out in detail in the White Paper.
All I need say on this occasion is that the arrangements will become effective when at least seven countries, with commitments totalling an equivalent of 5½ billion dollars, have told the Fund that they adhere to the arrangements and have taken all the steps necessary to enable them to take part. The scheme will then remain in effect for four years with provision for extension. If all the ten countries adhere—and I am confident that they will—the Fund will then have access to a total of 6 billion dollars of supplementary resources, including 2 billion dollars in United States dollars, 1 billion dollars in sterling and approximately 2½ billion dollars in the currencies of the Common Market countries. Hon. Members will, of course, realise

that in the nature of the arrangements not all of this 6 billion dollars will be usable at any one time. Nevertheless, the figure of 2½ billion dollars for the currencies of the six members of the Common Market represents a very large supplement indeed to the figure of only 1 billion dollars I have already mentioned in the Fund at present.
The Bill authorises the United Kingdom to make loans under the scheme. The House is entitled to know briefly of the terms on which loans could be made. They are laid down in detail under the I.M.F. decision, and the decision is set out in the White Paper. I think, therefore, that I need indicate only two of them.
First of all, it is an essential part of the scheme that countries will only be asked to lend when their balance of payments and reserves position permits it. This is obviously a point of very great importance. A further safeguard is that all prospective lenders, the participating countries, will consult among themselves when any proposal is made by the Managing Director of the Fund for use of the borrowing scheme.
The exchange of letters set out in the second part of the White Paper embodies the understandings which have been reached about the form of those consultations. Voting arrangements form part of the understandings, but they are to be resorted to only in the unlikely event of participants being unable to reach unanimous agreement. The voting procedure—this, again, I think important—will only cover the question whether the participants are prepared to facilitate, by lending currency to the Fund, an operation of the general order of magnitude proposed by the Managing Director of the Fund. The amount to be contributed by any individual participant will not be determined by voting. This will be a matter for agreement with the participant after holding discussions at the various consultative meetings.
Secondly, the overall limit under the Decision. Loans by each country are limited after making allowance for repayments to a maximum figure. In the case of the United Kingdom, as hon. Members will see from the table in page 10 of the White Paper, the figure is £357 million odd, the equivalent of 1,000 million dollars. There is provision


in the Decision for the limits to be increased by agreement. However, as the House will see, the upper limit is written into the Bill so that an increase in the limit could not be made without the sanction of Parliament. We thought that in the circumstances this was the right and proper thing.
Much of what I have had to say has been concerned with technical detail, but what lies behind it is of the utmost importance to every one of us. A strong and efficient structure of international payments is essential if we are to look forward to a steady increase of world trade, which is vital to a country such as ours depending on exports. Furthermore, the fact that ten countries are co-operating to support the scheme is a practical demonstration that they regard the whole structure of international trade as a matter of common concern. As one of the two countries with a reserve currency there can be little doubt that the arrangement is important to us, and one which should on all sides be welcomed as a new step in international co-operation.
This is a new venture which deserves the fullest support, and I commend the Bill to the House.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I do not think that this Bill is a controversial Bill in itself. Certainly the Bill is not a very informative Bill and we are grateful to the Economic Secretary for the amount of information that he has given to us about it. In so far as one is able to obtain information from a Government publication, the White Paper issued in March, even though to some extent it was an informative document, is certainly a compelling document to read. It begins with ten definitions—perhaps not the most compelling way to begin a document on this or any other subject.
It then goes on to the detailed paragraphs, and then we have an exchange of letters—an exchange of letters, rather oddly, between the Paymaster-General of the French Ministry of Finance writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and addressing him in very full terms as "The Honourable Selwyn Lloyd, C.B.E., T.D., Q.C., M.P." To that he gets in reply a letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and

addressed rather jejunely, "Monsieur Baumgartner, Ministre des Finances, Paris." I think that seems, both from the point of view of the address and possibly also from the point of view of the signatory, a rather inadequate reply to the more flowery letter which was received.
However, in so far as we know what is behind the Bill, we know more from the comments which appeared after the agreement was signed at the beginning of January, after the agreement was published, I think on 9th January, than we did from the White Paper, and the main comment, really picked on two points. They first of all suggested that this represented a fairly powerful shift of international financial influence from the other side of the Atlantic to Europe, considerably strengthening the obligations and the power of the countries in Europe in relation to the International Monetary Fund beyond what they previously had. Secondly, the comments suggested that the underlying assumption on which this agreement seemed to be based was that there was no remaining problem in international liquidity so far as trade is concerned, that the problem which had to be dealt with—and, indeed, the only problem which was suggested had to be dealt with—by this new arrangement was the question of capital movements, of hot money movements, but not the disequilibrium arising because of structural trade difficulties.
If it is assumed that we have left such trade difficulties entirely behind us, certainly in the old form, that of a semipermanent dollar shortage, I think that they will have disappeared from the world scene, at any rate for a long time to come. But this does not mean that they may not perhaps be replaced by some almost equally persistent but different difficulties, and I think it would be rash to assume that there was not a problem of this sort which had to be dealt with.
Therefore, I think our approach to this agreement should be that, if it is a stopgap agreement somewhat increasing the amount of international liquidity so far as the ten members subscribing to the club are concerned, well and good, then it is a step in the right direction, but if it is suggested that it deals with all long-term problems of international liquidity


and that there is no need any more to think about the Triffin scheme or the Stamp scheme because the problem has entirely been dealt with, I think that would be a mistaken view and would mean that there were disadvantages in the agreement which had been arrived at.
After all, the basic position is that world trade over the past ten years has increased by approximately 50 per cent., and during that period world reserves have increased by little more than 15 per cent., by less than one-third of the amount of increase of world trade. Therefore, I think that there is liable to be a problem arising out of trading difficulties and not merely out of the movement of capital difficulties.
I think it is also important, too, to realise the fairly limited extent of the increase in liquidity which this agreement makes available. In the first place, of course, the assistance can only be given to the 10 members of the club. It cannot be given to any country outside. In the second place, as the Economic Secretary, I think, quite fairly indicated, the fact that this is so, the fact that assistance can only be given to the member countries, means that it can never be given to the maximum extent of the resources which appear to be made available by the agreement.
We can never give 6 million dollars of aid entirely to a country. A situation could arise in which the 2 billion could not possibly be given because the dollar is under pressure and, therefore, the drawing rights of the nation cannot be used, and, indeed, a situation in which we might have sterling under pressure, when, therefore, our billion of lending power could not be enforced either. Therefore, the effective increase in international liquidity is likely to be only about 3 billion dollars.
This is not by any means a complete answer to the problem, and it would be dangerous if it were thought that it were. Nevertheless, I welcome the arrangement. It is a step in the right direction, but there are other steps which need to be taken in the future.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am not certain that we accept the view that this will lead to any vast increase

in international liquidity. If so, it would be that we are passing to an international body some control over global inflation.
The Economic Secretary said that the vast proportion of drawings from the International Monetary Fund had been made in the form of dollars, and I think we should realise what drawings have been made over the past fourteen years. Out of a total of about 4,100 million dollars, 3,300 million have been made in the form of dollars, and the drawings in the form of sterling have been very small indeed. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been a weakening in the dollar over the course of years. It is thus necessary to have a new form of International Monetary Fund which can carry on in contemporary conditions.
This agreement is a logical step. I think hon. Members will recollect that the central bankers of Europe got together and decided to stockpile sterling, provided that they had recourse against our drawings from the International Monetary Fund, which were substantial indeed.
The question now arises whether we are right in accepting the principles incorporated in the Bill, the Jacobsson Plan, which is, after all, the baby conceived at the Vienna Conference, or should we have looked at something more radical such as the Triffin, Stamp or other plan? I subscribe to the view that it is acceptable to look at the present machinery or something approximating thereto at this stage. The time is not ripe for the acceptance of more radical schemes.
There are problems here. I have looked at the exchange of letters, and I see that those who will decide in the first instance whether other participants should be offered facilities will have a right to vote on the matter. If the donor countries are to subscribe additional funds, should not they have some control over how the money is spent? I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us his views on this matter. Obviously if the voting is to be at this stage two-thirds majority, on a numerical basis, that means that seven out of ten participants would have to agree. There is another condition about three-fifths of the majority of the weighted votes. This would perhaps include the United States


who would be subscribing $2,000 million, the United Kingdom who would be subscribing $1,000 million, and, of course, Western Germany who would be subscribing another $1,000 million.
At this stage are the participants entitled to look at the position of the country asking for additional drawing rights, or is it an irrevocable appropriation? In other words, if this country is contemplating in the near future going into the Common Market, will it be as easy for us to go to the International Monetary Fund and get additional funds when we require them, or will we be faced with an inquisition as outlined in paragraph C of this exchange of letters?
We will be faced by at least five of the six members of the European Economic Community who will be sitting in judgment on us to decide whether these facilities should be granted. There is nothing in the exchange of letters to show that the French views have prevailed, but paragraph D says:
If during the consultations a participant gives notice that in its opinion, based on its present and prospective balance of payment and reserve position, calls should not be made on it, or that calls should be for a smaller amount than that proposed, the participants shall consult amongst themselves
to try to get the additional money required. Does that mean that a country will be entitled not to subscribe if it feels that the recipient country is not entitled to the money, or is a country only entitled to say that for its own balance of payment reasons it is not in a position to provide the money? In other words, there could be a dangerous situation if a country which has not put its own house in order comes along to the International Monetary Fund and finds that the fund is irrevocably committed, and that it must provide the necessary cover in an emergency.
The House may recollect a small article in The Times of 21st June, 1961, which referred to hot money. My hon. Friend talked about the form of short-term capital movements. Let us give it its correct name. It is volatile money which is moving rapidly over the Exchanges, and it has been a considerable embarrassment to us in the United Kingdom. It has led to our recent crisis, and is behind some of our principal troubles, the pay pause, and so on. This

is what The Times said on 21st June, 1961:
The Bank for International Settlements, for example, suggests that the outflow of funds from the United States last year was close on $2,000 million, and that the shift of funds within Europe in a single week this spring was more than a quarter of that sum (i.e., as much as $500 million or more in a week). The E.M.A. report puts the inflow of short-term funds into Europe last year at around $3,000 million.
Hon. Members will realise that shortly after June, in fact in September, we faced one of the biggest crises of our history. If it were not for the Basle Agreement, we might have been forced into the situation which hon. Gentlemen opposite had to face in September, 1949. when the £ was devalued. If we go into Europe, and if there is a certain amount of strain on sterling, will we have full support under this arrangement so that we get through successfully without being forced to devalue the £?
I leave the House with two thoughts. First, that the creditor countries such as West Germany and Italy, two vanquished nations, should recognise their sense of responsibility to other States. In other words, that we should have the international co-operation outlined in this document. For this reason I am glad to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Secondly, it is important that we in the United Kingdom should not indulge in self-denigration and give other countries the impression that we feel that we cannot get through our difficulties. If we do this, nobody will try to assist us. We must ask other nations to be reasonable about what they are going to do, and see that we put our own house in order. We must not, as some people are doing in this House, go around saying that we are perhaps a little Great Power. This policy of self-denigration will have the result of under-mining our confidence and will let Britain down.
I need not go further on that matter. I think that I have got my point across. I welcome these proposals, and I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the additional point that this figure of $1,000 million involved in this Bill is a considerable sum of money, but if it contributes to the stability of the two key currencies, sterling and the dollar,


it is welcome. What we want is stability in national currencies, and not what we could have—utter confusion.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Barber: Perhaps I may say a few words in answer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet).
First, I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend in his closing observations to the effect that the basic purpose of the scheme is to provide stability in international payments. My hon. Friend seemed to consider that there was something perhaps disadvantageous to the United Kingdom in our having to subscribe to an arrangement of this kind which in terms provides for us not to participate only if we are in balance of payments difficulties. If he will look at the Preamble to the arrangement, which is set out in page 3 of the White Paper, he will see that the whole purpose is that the several countries should make a contribution unless and until they are faced with serious balance of payments difficulties. That qualification is set out in paragraph 7 (d) of the Agreement.
There is also—this is important—in paragraph 11 (f) provision that a participant which has made a loan to the international Monetary Fund may give notice representing that there is a balance of payments need for repayment of part or all of the Fund's indebtedness and request such repayment. The words are:
The Fund shall give the overwhelming benefit of any doubt to the participant's representation.
Bearing in mind that these arrangements were agreed to between ten countries, I think the terms are reasonable.
The hon. Member for Stechford and my hon. Friend referred to certain wider implications arising from these arrangements. I would certainly agree with the hon. Member for Stechford that these arrangements do not and, indeed are not, intended to deal with the long-term problems of international liquidity. They are not a complete answer. While the scheme was being negotiated, and in the months preceding it, there was considerable discussion as to whether or not

there should be a bigger and wider scheme than the one which has just been arranged.
The hon. Member for Stechford referred to Professor Triffin and Mr. Stamp, who have made suggestions go considerably wider. The arrangements to which we have agreed follow broadly along the lines which were advocated by Mr. Bernstein.
The position of the United Kingdom in all this has been that as a short-term measure more needs to be done to strengthen the fund in order to deal with the problems arising from the present imbalance. This is the immediate need which confronts the leading countries of the world. I think that the arrangement which is now before us and which I am asking the House to approve goes a long way to help in that way.
I have dealt with the points which were raised by the two hon. Gentlemen, except that I think the hon. Member for Stechford seems to think that there was something odd about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replying to M. Baumgartner. I think that at that particular time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was abroad.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to enable the United Kingdom to take part in arrangements under which the International Monetary Fund may borrow supplementary resources from its members, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for the purpose of making loans to the International Monetary Fund in accordance with the said arrangements;


(b) the borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing any sums to be so issued or for replacing any sums so issued;
(c) any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable into the Exchequer under subsection (2) of section two of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, 1945.—[Mr. Barber.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ANTI-DUMPING (AMMONIUM SULPHATE)

7.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 419), dated 26th February, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.
This Order imposes an anti-dumping duty of £3 per ton on ammonium sulphate originating in the Soviet zone of Germany. The duty arises from an application of the British ammonium sulphate industry for a duty under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957.
Before duties can be imposed under this Act, the Board of Trade has to be satisfied not only that dumping or subsidisation is taking place but that this is causing or threatening material injury to a British industry and that action would be in the national interest. As soon as we were satisfied in the present instance that there was a prima facie case both of dumping and of consequent threatened material injury, a public announcement was made inviting representations from interested parties. Representations were made, and they were taken fully into account in our consideration of the application.
After a full investigation of the facts, my right hon. Friend reached the conclusion that East German sulphate of ammonia was being sold to Britain at a dumped price within the meaning of the Act, that these imports threatened material injury to the British producers and that an anti-dumping duty would be in the national interest. A Press announcement was published to this effect the day after the Order was made.
The House will recall that in 1960 the Board of Trade considered an application for anti-dumping action against sulphate of ammonia from Belgium and West Germany. We then reached the conclusion that dumping by those countries threatened material injury to the British industry and that action was justified within the terms of the Act. On that occasion, the Belgian and West German exporters agreed to increase their prices so that an actual duty did not need to be imposed.
In considering the case against East German sulphate of ammonia we had to have regard not only to East German supplies in themselves. If dumping from East Germany was not checked, Belgian and West German suppliers would be likely to press to re-enter the market at dumped prices. The British industry was thus potentially at risk from dumped imports from a number of sources. Consequently, my right hon. Friend was satisfied that a threat of material injury again existed.
In conclusion, I would say that the Board has investigated the whole case carefully, including the costs and profits of the producers. The House will remember that the Monopolies Commission reported in 1960 that the activities of the major British producer, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., were not contrary to the public interest and that its profits were not unduly high. Since the report, I.C.I. has reduced the price of fertilisers twice. After full investigation, the Board has concluded that material injury to the British sulphate of ammonia industry is threatened, and I therefore commend this Order to the House.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has given us a very sketchy justification for this Order, which, I think, demands a little more careful consideration.
There is, of course, a rather unusual background to this anti-dumping duty, in more ways than one, partly because, the hon. Gentleman said, these imports come from East Germany, and there has been a certain amount of controversy of a political kind in the Press connected with the Leipzig Fair and other things about these imports and the desirability


of this country trading in this way with East Germany. The Minister, I noticed, did not advance any political argument of that kind as a reason for this Order, and I did not expect that he would do so. Nevertheless, I think that the Government, to some extent, are themselves to blame if people are a little suspicious about the motives for this Order.
The Lord Privy Seal took it upon himself to give a warning that any British visitors to the recent Leipzig Fair might be politically exploited by the East German authorities. That sounded a little like discouraging people from going to that fair and doing business there. I myself could not see the point of that warning, since the Federation of British Industries organised, presumably with the full knowledge of the Government, a British Pavilion at this fair, and since a large number of reputable British firms were attending it, and also, incidentally, a large number of West German firms. I believe that actually 626 German firms were exhibiting and trading there.
Therefore, my own view of this is that, however much we may dislike the political policies of the East German Government, or, perhaps, even some of the methods of trading between traders in this country and East Germany, it does not seem to me sensible to have a sort of ineffective, semi-official economic boycott of East Germany at the present time.
Surely, in the matter of trading, either we have some organised internationally recognised sanctions, or we ought to have no interference of a political kind with trade at all. Indeed, we in this country are trading with Russia, Spain, Portugal, China and a number of other countries of this kind with whose political policies we do not sympathise, and I do not see why we should take any different attitude to East Germany on political grounds. Therefore, it seems to me that this House ought tonight to examine this Order from a strictly economic point of view, which is what I hope the hon. Gentleman did. I trust that the Minister will assure us that there was no other motive than that in introducing the Order.
Further, when we look at the Order as a strictly economic and trading matter,

we find that there are some rather unusual circumstances. The first is that, as the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his brief speech submitted, I.C.I. is the dominant producer of this particular fertiliser in this country. We are now in this rather odd position. We had Mr. Paul Chambers the other day publicly justifying monopoly on the ground that international competition made it necessary nowadays to have strong and large producers in this country. That was his main justification for having a single producer, but in this case, when imports of an I.C.I. monopoly product are being brought into this country at prices with which I.C.I. cannot compete. I.C.I. comes to the Board of Trade asking for a heavy import duty in order to raise the price to the level at which I.C.I. is selling in this country.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the Report of the Monopolies Commission on fertilisers, quite rightly showing that, in its general conclusions, it did not convict the British producers of monopoly practices. But the Report also said something else, which the hon. Gentleman did not quote, and that was that imports of these fertilisers from East Germany had been one of the factors in keeping prices down. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned that.
We have to remember, further, that this House, on other occasions, has voted public money for fertiliser subsidies, and, by imposing this duty tonight, if the House decides to do so, we may, no doubt, exclude East German fertilisers from this country, but we may also raise the price that farmers in this country will have to pay for their fertilisers.

Mr. Macpherson: May I make it quite clear that sulphate of ammonia did not start coming into this country from East Germany until 1960, whereas the Report was in 1959?

Mr. Jay: That may well be true, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at page 196 of the Report he will find that it actually mentions fertiliser imports from East Germany in two places, so that, if they had not started, the Commission apparently knew that they were going to start.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Surely, the principle was there, whether, as suggested by the Minister, it was


potash or any other fertilizer. It mentions fertilisers, and surely that is what the Report means.

Mr. Jay: I quite agree, but the point I was making was that by raising the price, as the hon. Gentleman will agree we shall do by this Order, we are automatically increasing the subsidy that will have to be paid, and, therefore, the charge on public funds, as well as I.C.I.'s profit, by this Order. We may say that all these considerations are quite irrelevant, if it has been shown that this ammonia sulphate is being dumped in the sense defined in the antidumping legislation, but these facts make me approach the argument with a certain amount of scepticism.
To establish the case, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the anti-dumping duty is justified, it has to be shown first, that the national interest—not just the material interests of one firm or a group of firms, but the national interest—is threatened, and, secondly, that goods are being sold in this country by a trader at lower prices than those at which they are being sold in some other market.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary showed that the national interest is being threatened or has been injured by this, and I should like him to tell us how it is being injured or substantially injured. What are his grounds for thinking that, and what is the evidence on which he asks us to take that view? In what way are the interests of anybody, other than I.C.I. and perhaps one or two other producers, being threatened by these imports?
Secondly, the allegation that the ammonium sulphate is being sold here at dumped prices may very well be true. Presumably, what the Parliamentary Secretary means, although it was very far from clear, is that this ammonium sulphate is being sold in this country by the East Germans and their agents at lower prices than it is sold either in East Germany or in some other export market. I presume that that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, but, according to my information, I.C.I. is doing exactly the same thing, and this he did not tell us. Will the Minister say whether it is true—because we should know this, and it is not easy for us as private persons to find out—that I.C.I.

is now charging £18 2s. 6d. per ton or thereabouts in the United Kingdom market, and he is asking for a duty of £3 per ton because the East German imports are selling at £16 per ton, which I.C.I. says is gross under-pricing and quite unfair, whereas I.C.I. itself at the moment is selling in the Irish Republc at £12 10s. per ton?
I ask the Minister whether that is true. If it is, it seems to me a curious use of the anti-dumping legislation. If the facts are anything like this, we are being asked to impose a heavy duty to raise the price of fertiliser against the British farmer—and, incidentally, raise the cost to the taxpayer—to enable I.C.I. to make monopoly profits here and to sell fertiliser produced in this country to Irish farmers—who may compete with British farmers—at a lower price than the British farmer is allowed to enjoy; and also, of course, at a lower price than that at which I.C.I. complains that these wicked East Germans are selling it in this country.
That seems to me to be mad-hatter economics, and a distinctly odd use of the anti-dumping legislation. Had it been understood that the legislation would be used in this way I do not think that the House would have been so willing to pass it. It means that we are being asked by legislation to ensure that Irish farmers may compete with British farmers—having received fertiliser at a much cheaper price—so that I.C.I. may enjoy a monopoly in the British market. That is an extraordinary proposition.
Before we approve the Order I should like these points answered by the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to be given a great deal more information than the hon. Gentleman gave in his very sketchy speech.

7.21 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: The farmers in my constituency have asked me to oppose this Order, or at least to protest vigorously against it, not so much from the Leipzig point of view as from their point of view, and to ask some questions on their behalf. The farmers complain that every year, at the time of the Annual Price Review, they are asked to be more and more efficient and to reduce their prices. They say, I think rightly, that everything they have to buy is going up in price and that it is unfair


that their supplies should go up in price and yet that they should be asked, on behalf of the taxpayers, to keep bringing down their own prices.
It is true that over the last year or so the price of fertilisers to the British farmer has come down, but my constituents say that it has not come down nearly as much as it should, and not nearly as much as it could if this Order were not approved. I understand that in addition to the duty of £3 per ton which we are now asked to impose, there is already a £4 per ton duty which has been in existence, as a protection, for over twenty years. So, tonight, the House is being asked to give to I.C.I., which has a virtual monopoly in the supply of sulphate of ammonia, a protection of £7 per ton. I must be satisfied on these points by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary before I can consider voting for this Order.
In passing, may I say that I do not see why we should not trade with East Germany if it is to the national advantage. I do not see why we should allow West Germany to take up a dog-in-the-manger attitude. West Germany does a great deal of trade with East Germany, but is prepared to kick up a row when we try to do the same. We should take no notice of what the West Germans say on political grounds about this kind of business. If it helps our farmers and saves Exchequer grants, it should be allowed to go on.
I am advised by the farmers in my constituency that application was made by I.C.I. as long ago as July for this extra duty of £3 per ton to be placed on fertiliser. The complaint is made by those people interested that the duty was imposed as from 3rd March this year, but no notice was given to those who would be affected by it. They were notified on 3rd March, the morning that the duty was imposed. This shows a lack of courtesy which is unusual in the Department. I should like to remind my hon. Friend of what was said by the Financial Times about this matter on 10th March. This is the background to the whole situation:
The fact seems to be that all producers are prepared to offer some of their surplus output for export at prices much lower than could be sustained over the whole of their production—and I.C.I.'s sales in Ireland, cited to show that U.K. prices are too high, fall into this class.

In short, all the recent sensations have arisen from one familiar situation—a world surplus in a market dominated by very large producers and divided by tariff walls…. Mr. Wormald stated that competition inside Europe has become severe enough to revive negotiations for a cartel, and his evidence cannot lightly be dismissed.
This is to be controlled by international legislation for the protection of the producer without any consideration at all for the consumer. I am speaking on behalf of the consumer. My farmers rightly say that they are sick and tired of being told at each Annual Price Review that they are being "feather-bedded" and subsidised, and that they are being given grants by the taxpayers when, in this case, the money goes either to the middle-men or to the suppliers of the commodities which they have to use. They say that the subsidy for fertiliser is going to I.C.I. and not to the farmers.
It has been established that I.C.I. is offering this sulphate of ammonia at £12 a ton. It is selling it in this country to the compounders at £18 2s. 6d., but charging the farmer £20 a ton. That is £8 difference between what I.C.I. is prepared to sell at outside and what it is charging the farmer. If the farmer gets a subsidy of £8 15s., as he does at the moment, £8 goes to I.C.I. and only 15s. to the farmer. The farmers in my constituency are live enough to protest against this. They carry the burden of an accusation of taking the taxpayers' money, but they are not taking it at all. The bulk of it is going to preserve the great monopoly of I.C.I.
In another place, when questions were asked about this matter, the Minister said that it was only a small amount which was being sold abroad, that a mere 8,000 tons was sold to Southern Ireland at this low price. I am advised—I should like this to be confirmed or denied by the Minister—that during last year exports from this country to Mauritius amounted to 35,000 tons; to Ceylon, 46,000 tons; and to Indonesia, 54,000 tons. It is known that I.C.I. has offered a 10,000-ton contract to Pakistan at £12 a ton, but it was beaten by the Americans. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that this vast quantity, over 100,000 tons, has been sold abroad at about £12 a ton. If I.C.I. could afford to do it overseas it can afford to do it at home.
My farmers are saying that it is unfair to blame them for taking public money which they do not receive. They say that the £7 a ton paid in subsidies this year for fertilisers has really gone to I.C.I. Another aspect which worries my constituents is that I.C.I. produces 90 per cent. of supplies of sulphate of ammonia and that the company is also the agent of the trust or syndicate which handles the whole of it. So the whole trade is in the hands of this one firm. It has complete control.
My hon. Friend quoted the Monopolies Commission Report, which says that I.C.I. had not made unreasonable profits on its home sales. Did the Report say anything as to whether I.C.I. is a firm of efficient producers? I understand that the bulk of this chemical is produced at the Billingham works, which are over thirty years old and which, in terms of chemical engineering, are well past being really efficient.
It is not the duty of this House to support I.C.I. if its equipment is inefficient. I protest, on behalf of my farmers and of myself as a taxpayer, that we should be subsidising I.C.I. if it is inefficient and has old-fashioned plant which makes it cost more to produce this commodity here than in Western Germany, in Belgium, or in Eastern Germany. I am also advised that quite recently the Western European ports price f.o.b. has been between £9 4s. and £11 6s. per ton, yet the farmer here is being charged £20 a ton. People have the impudence to say that farmers are "feather-bedded", whereas in this case it is the I.C.I. which is "feather-bedded".
Coming back to the point made in another place that the amount which was sold abroad was only a tiny proportion of the total, I am advised that in the last four years the amount of I.C.I. production sold abroad varied between 27 per cent. and 14 per cent. of total production. That is not a tiny proportion, but an important factor in this production. We ought to say to I.C.I. that we cannot allow this kind of thing to go on.
Three years ago 25 per cent. of sulphate of ammonia consumed in this country was imported. It was imported at very much lower prices than I.C.I. now produces it. The very existence of

that considerable factor of imports helped to keep down the prices which I.C.I. charged the British farmer. The Minister said that three years ago the Government requested the Belgian and West German suppliers to increase their price by, I believe, about 50s. per ton which effectively shut out those imports from this country. It left only East Germany which, I understand, is supplying about 3 per cent. of our requirements. If this Order goes through that 3 per cent. will be stopped and I.C.I. will have a complete and utter monopoly in this market.
If I were satisfied that I.C.I.'s productive capacity was the best in the world, I would support it. The Minister said, when introducing the Order, that the Board of Trade must be satisfied, first, that there was dumping and, secondly, that there was material damage done to producers in this country. The Government ought to consider whether material damage is being done to users in this country by the steps which are being taken. It is not fair merely to look at this from the point of view of the producer. From the taxpayer's point of view and the fanner's point of view something more should be said about it.
A few days ago Mr. Paul Chambers, a very energetic business man, was speaking to the Institute of Personnel Management, and on this very issue said:
Almost anything that will drive away the lethargy of industries hiding behind high walls of protection and subsidy will put new life into the country's economy.
I wish that he would take a dose of his own medicine. I remember, as the House will, that I protested on many occasions at the action of I.C.I. in trying to take Courtaulds into its monopoly on the ground that it was charging in the man-made fibre industry as much as twice the price for the basic raw materials that Courtaulds could buy elsewhere. I remember that those charges have never been refuted. That makes me frightened about giving I.C.I. a greater monopoly.
Before the Order goes through, the Minister ought to make quite clear, first, that I.C.I. is not asking for something to protect an inefficient production and, secondly, that the farmers will not be saddled with having a subsidy which is really passed on to I.C.I. Until I have


that assurance I shall not be prepared to vote for the Order.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I do not often find that I can agree with a speech made by a Conservative hon. Member, but I must say that I could not disagree with a single word that was spoken by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). However, there are one or two small additional points I wish to make about this Order.
First, I think that this is a singularly unfortunate time to burden the British farmer with this sort of imposition. His Price Review wage cut—if one may call it so—amounts this year to £11 million. I have seen a rather curious argument that that should be equated with an anticipated increase in income of the same figure, £11 million. Surely our objective is to increase the prosperity of our farming industry. I cannot think of any worse way of setting about that than to agree to this sort of Order.
We also see in the newspapers that it is proposed to cut down imports of butter from the Continent. We are talking about the farmers and their interests tonight, but should we not sometimes think about the consumer? In the event, it is the consumer who pays, through the farmer, to the monopoly interests of I.C.I. Because we are to cut down butter imports from the Continent, the price of United Kingdom produced butter is to go up. This must be a reflection of the sort of working of operational costs to which the British farmer is subjected.
I suggest that it is the duty of this House to see that the British farmer is given every facility and is not made to pay outrageous prices for an ordinary commodity which, as has been shown tonight, the Irish farmer is getting more cheaply and which I.C.I. is exporting more cheaply than the price it charges the farmer in this country.
The hon. Member for Louth said he wondered whether the production costs of I.C.I. were not the result of inefficient production from outdated plant, and so forth. I ask the Minister what steps have been taken to find how unreal—if they are unreal—the export prices of East Germany are and how much they are the product of an artificial economy.

From what I can gather, I do not think that it would be very easy to find the actual costs of production in East Germany, but, if our economic research methods are so poor that we cannot find the answer to those questions, it is time that we woke up.
There is far too much hiding behind the refuge of high prices abroad. This happens about Japanese production. We hear about the low wages which are paid in Japan, and so forth. We shall hear a lot more about this sort of antidumping proposal because of the lobbying which goes on by self-interested producers in this country. We must give a good, cool, hard look at some of the production efficiency of firms abroad. That would be in the interests of this country rather than accepting, apparently without question, the sort of thing that we are being asked to pass tonight.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I support the Order because I believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has gone into the question carefully in the inquiries which he has made before bringing it forward and that he has established that this sulphate of ammonia is being dumped. I am against dumping and, therefore, if it is being dumped, I am in favour of the Order.
I have an idea that the main content of this sulphate of ammonia is nitrogen, which comes largely from the air, whether in East Germany or over here. There is enough air in Britain for the sulphate of ammonia for British firms to be made here, given proper circumstances, rather than made in East Germany and imported.
There are, however, one or two things about the Order which give rise to interesting thoughts. The first is the point which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has mentioned, namely, the difficulty of establishing the cost of production in Iron Curtain countries. This is a problem which we have very much encountered in the importation of fruit products, pulp in particular, from Iron Curtain countries.
It seems to have been rather easier for my hon. Friend to establish that the material to which the Order relates


is being sold beneath the cost of production than it has been in the case of various fruit products which affected rather less powerful producers at home than the producer who is affected in the present instance.

Sir C. Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is difficult to establish the price at which commodities are produced in the Iron Curtain countries, but the first stoppage of supplies of sulphate of ammonia to this country was by West Germany and Belgium, which are this side of the Iron Curtain. My hon. Friend's argument does not run.

Mr. Bullard: Sulphate of ammonia and nitrogen products generally come from various other European countries as well as Eastern Europe.
I was comparing the ease with which the present case seems to have been established and the difficulty which most agricultural and horticultural producers seem to experience in establishing a case for anti-dumping duties. In other instances, when anti-dumping duties have been asked for but have not always been granted, I have always found that before action has been taken there has been a considerable fall in the home price. In this case, I am not aware that there has been any considerable fall in the home price of sulphate of ammonia. Therefore, although I support the Order, it does not in any way justify the price policy which the home manufacturers of sulphate of ammonia and other nitrogenous fertilisers are following.
It would be a good thing if we could be assured that when they have this anti-dumping duty our home producers of sulphate of ammonia, which I very much want to see produced in this country, will set about reducing their prices to the British farmer.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) will not think it disrespectful if I say that I find it a little difficult to reconcile his argument with his conclusions. If all the objections, questions or doubts that the hon. Member has about the Order are well-founded—and I am persuaded that they are—that should lead him to oppose the Order rather than to support

it, as the hon. Member said he would do. I quite understand that the hon. Member, like many of us, is not against the principle of anti-dumping legislation, but that does not mean that one has to support every Order that is proposed. One has to look at them to see that the conditions laid down by the Statute apply.
I find myself, embarrassingly enough for both of us, no doubt, in enthusiastic agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). Before I say why, however, I ought to declare my interest. It is a purely political interest. I am not a member of anybody's board of directors. I am not in business, I do not trade, I have no interest of that kind in any sort of way.
My political interest arises from the fact that I was one of a number of hon. Members of this House who had the temerity to go to Moscow in April, 1952, on the occasion of an international economic conference. There were four or five hon. Members from this side of the House and on the other side there was at least the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson). There may have been one or two others who were associated with it in some way but who did not actually go to Moscow. That was a very important occasion.
In so far as there has been any improvement in international politics in the last ten years, I would date it from then, because there is no surer way of getting round political difficulties, antagonisms and suspicions of one sort and another than by developing trade on a basis that is profitable and advantageous to both sides. That is a good thing to do and not a bad thing, whether one's politics are sympathetic to one side or antagonistic to the other or whatever they may happen to be on general principles.
What puzzles me about the Order is this. To justify an Order, as I understand it, one has to show not one thing but two things. It is necessary to show, first, that the competition is unfair in that the price at which the goods are imported bears no reasonable correlation with the cost of production, so that the competition that is brought about by the goods being brought into the country when the same product is produced here is unfair competition. Even if that is proved, one has


not proved enough. It is necessary to prove one other important thing, that is, that, having shown that the price is uneconomic, one has to show in addition, separately from that, that it is in the national interest to prevent the commodity from coming in.
As I followed the Minister's speech, his case seemed to me to break down on both points. On the first point, he lamentably failed to show that there was any unfair competition involved, either by reference to the price at which the goods are offered or by reference to the price at which, without losing money and with making a reasonable profit, the principal industry competed with in this country could sell the same goods.
I do not know many of the facts. I am taking them from what the Minister said and from the other things that I have heard in the course of the debate. It does not seem to me that any harm would be done to I.C.I. by this amount of competition at this price. Moreover, the more it is said that it is difficult to establish the costs of production in the country of origin, the more one is confessing that one has not made out the first leg of the argument, namely, that it bears no proper relation to the cost of production. Unless one can satisfactorily analyse and assess the original cost of production, one does not begin to establish that the price is not a fair one.
If it is said that we cannot afford to take risks, and we will assume that because the foreign price is lower than I.C.I.'s price therefore the competition, although effective, is unfair, even then it is necessary to establish the second leg of the argument that it is in the national interest to make the Order. Why is it in the national interest to make the Order? Who will gain by the making of it? What national interest, as distinct from sectional interest, will be served by it? The Minister was not very effective in his attempt to say why. Indeed, he did not attempt to say why; he merely said that it was not in the national interest. He gave us no reasons for thinking so. He did not tell us what national interest was being injured by the situation with which this Anti-Dumping Order is to deal. He did not say what national interest was being preserved by it.
The Minister told us something about I.C.I. It seems to me, however, that on the history of the matter, generally, I.C.I. is perfectly capable of looking after itself industrially without bringing in adventitious political aids. I.C.I. does not seem to be in any difficulty. I do not know whether the Minister was offering I.C.I. this anti-dumping Order as a kind of consolation prize for not succeeding in taking over Courtaulds. If he was, it does not seem to me to be enough.

Sir C. Osborne: May I help the hon. Member? I.C.I. made the application in July last year.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged. I will not pursue that matter.
If one is left to wonder what national interest is being adversely affected in this way, one is driven into an area which, I know, the Minister would agree to be an improper area from the point of view of this legislation, namely, a political area. It is possible to argue, although certainly I would not myself accept the argument, that it was against the national interest to trade with East Germany or with any other Communist country.
Certainly that is not the Government's position as a whole, and certainly one suspects that there is a pull-devil pull-baker going on in the Government, as there is in a great many other matters, too. In this instance, however, it is between the President of the Board of Trade and the Lord Privy Seal, who on this whole matter seem to me to speak not merely with different voices but with voices that do not harmonise. It is a discord, a conflict, and they seem to be arguing when they are the Board of Trade that trade is good, no matter who it is with, as long as it is on fair terms, advantageous and profitable; and, in so far as they are not the Board of Trade but the Foreign Office, they have to consider what may be thought about it in Washington and in Bonn.
The question of what may be thought about it in Bonn is, however, either irrelevant or tells the other way, because I understand that Bonn has no reluctance in trading with East Germany either in these products or in any other. Bonn is doing very well out of it and will do even better if the Board of Trade


goes on making any more of these antidumping Orders.
It does not seem to me to be in the national interest from a trading point of view to diminish the advantages in our own country and to raise the price of these products to our own citizens in order to help Bonn to reap a double advantage, one political and the other industrial and commercial. It does not make sense.
We shall all be willing to give the Parliamentary Secretary leave to reply to the debate. He cannot speak a second time without leave, but we shall be grateful if he tries to clear up the situation, because in many places—certainly in the House of Commons, and in the country and the world—the Government are making themselves ridiculous by their ambiguity. People do not understand why British common sense has now reached a stage when it regards cutting off one's nose to spite one's face as good politics and good industry. We are in that position.
The Minister has not made his case. Not one speech has been made in support of him. There is one promise to vote for him, but the speech of the hon. Member in question was not in support of the Minister and contained as many doubts about the Order as have been voiced by anybody else who has spoken in the debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider it.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Before I proceed with my speech I must declare an interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has reminded the House that ten years ago we were together in Moscow examining the possibilities of increasing East-West trade. My interest is that a firm with which I am associated are the importers from Eastern Germany of sulphate of ammonia. They are also the importers of East German potash, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The right hon. Gentleman also said something about the general position at Leipzig, with much of which I do not disagree.
When the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and I were in Moscow together, he made what I considered at

the time to be a number of very wild statements about the possible volume of future business which could be achieved between the Soviet Union and Great Britain. However, as the years have gone by the figures which he mentioned then have proved to be a gross underestimate, because ten years after the event East-West trade has developed to a level where it now plays an important part in the British import and export programme. This has been acknowledged by every Minister and Foreign Secretary during the last ten years.
I usually go about with a small library of quotations from Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries, Ministers of State and others, supporting this objective of increasing East-West trade. I sometimes quote them when I am abroad. One which always comes to my mind is a letter from a senior Minister saying, first, that trade with East Germany is on all-fours with trade with the Soviet Union and, secondly, that far from Her Majesty's Government wishing to discourage East-West trade they will do all they can actively to support and promote it.
Where do we go from there? As my hon. Friends have said, we want to get as much of this trade as we can. If we do not, we can be certain that Western Germany will step into the breach. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on his first-class speech. He mentioned the problems of Courtaulds in the past and the high price they had charged for some of their products.

Sir C. Osborne: I mentioned the high prices I.C.I. had charged Courtaulds for basic raw materials.

Mr. Drayson: I am sorry. Ten years ago I was connected with another Order introduced in the House. It was not an anti-dumping Order. It was introduced by Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, following a memorandum I sent to him when he was President of the Board of Trade. I refer to Statutory Instrument No. 1019 of 1951 entitled "Import Duties (Exemptions) Order ". I was then able to prove conclusively to the Minister that Courtaulds and British Celanese were charging far too much for the artificial silk waste they were selling to the


British textile industry. As a consequence we were unable to compete in world export markets. So Sir Hartley Shawcross suspended the 9d. a lb. import duty from 14th June, 1951, until the end of the year. This allowed six months for Courtaulds and British Celanese to adjust their prices so as to be more competitive with world prices.

Mr. H. Rhodes: That is not correct. The import duty was cancelled because there were not sufficient quantities available in this country to textile manufacturers. It was waived so that more fibres of this nature could come into the country. It had nothing to do with the price here. Courtaulds were the cheapest producers in the world and, in my opinion, they had a very fine sense of public responsibility.

Mr. Drayson: I cannot entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I consider that this was my Order, introduced because of my memorandum. The President of the Board of Trade wrote to me at the time and told me that he was introducing this Order following the representations I had made. He repealed the silk duty of 9d. per lb. previously charged on such waste and reimposed it at the beginning of 1952.
I want to say something about the cavalier way in which the Order we are asked to approve tonight was introduced. The application was made in July last year. Interested parties were able to submit their respective cases to the Board of Trade. They did so. They were told that the matter was being considered. Nothing was heard about this project from July, 1961, until half-past three in the afternoon of Friday, 2nd March, when a Press statement was made. Firms which were interested were telephoned by newspaper men who said, "We know that you have an interest in this subject. Have you heard about it? What are your comments?" My firm immediately contacted the Board of Trade and said, "Can you tell us something about an anti-dumping Order which is supposed to have been introduced this afternoon? Some Press handout has gone out from the Board of Trade". The reply was, "Yes, there is a letter in the post telling you about it".
That letter would have arrived on Saturday morning when all offices are closed. It would not have been opened until early on Monday. Already there were ships loaded with this produce coming across the Channel. Why should firms which had been bringing in cheaper sulphate of ammonia and helping British agriculture and mixers be treated in this way? I have never heard of such a disgraceful state of affairs. I said at the time, "This is absolutely monstrous". When the Barley Order was introduced, firms were at least given notice. They were given the opportunity of completing their existing contracts. Yet barley was doing far more damage. This cheap sulphate of ammonia was conferring a benefit. Barley imports were doing far more damage to British agriculture.
On Friday, 2nd March, or Saturday, 3rd March, businessmen and Members of Parliament were just about to embark for the Leipzig Fair, where British industry was spending £500,000 on the British Pavilion, and stands with over 260 of our major firms exhibiting. They were supported by the Federation of British Industries, with representatives of the London Chamber of Commerce there. Then somebody comes along and refers to this as red trade and suggested that we should not do it. The Minister has much to answer for because of the way in which the Order was introduced, penalising firms which have done their utmost to support him in his export drive and in many other ways.
What are the facts about the importation of fertilisers from Eastern Germany? I think I can say that I was intimately concerned with the Monopolies Commission Report on the fertiliser industry, because I was a party to the discussions which took place in Eastern Germany, which resulted in an independent source of potash coming to this country. Paragraph 702 of the Report says:
We have commented on the beneficial effects of competition from East Germany in recent years.
Paragraph 657 of the Report says:
The large increase in the scale of rebates in recent years, which is admittedly prompted to a great extent by competition from East Germany and has had the effect of reducing Potash Limited's average net selling and buying prices….


I am very pleased to put these matters on record once again. Paragraph 667 says:
the principal effect of the rebates has been to reduce the average net selling price of potash in order to meet East German competition.
I should like the price of sulphate of ammonia to the farmer in this country to come down in order to meet this East German competition. The paragraph goes on to say:
Both the competition and Potash Limited's reaction to it are to be welcomed.
And in paragraph 619 we find—
The effects, in recent years, of competition from East Germany are such as to suggest that a greater degree of competition between Potash Limited's suppliers would be beneficial to United Kingdom buyers.
I am not ashamed of having been intimately associated with this transaction. It has saved British farmers, in view of the vast tonnage of potash coming into this country, literally hundreds of thousands of pounds. It has cost the West German Government and the West German potash syndicate probably millions of pounds. I suppose that is why they dislike my activities so much and enlist the support of certain newspapers against it. I am not ashamed of having been a party to the breaking of the potash monopoly, and I will stand up anywhere and defend what I and my firm have done.
As to the supply of sulphate of ammonia, this year before this Order became operative 19,000 tons were imported from Eastern Germany. When I was in Leipzig I had discussions with I.C.I.'s representatives and directors from the Leuner chemical works where this is manufactured. It was agreed that only 15,000 tons would be brought in during 1962–63. This is approximately 3 per cent. of this country's total requirements, yet I.C.I. has asked for a sledgehammer to crack this tiny nut of 3 per cent. which competition it says it cannot face.

Sir C. Osborne: To put this matter into its proper perspective, I remind my hon. Friend that I.C.I. exported about 150,000 tons in the same period at the same low price.

Mr. Drayson: I have other examples. I am very glad that my hon. Friend gave examples of quotations which he knew had been made by I.C.I. in the last

twelve months. I understand that the production of the Leuner works is rather similar to that in this country—about 800,000 tons—and they have 200,000 tons available for export.
I want to look at some other prices which I understand have been quoted recently by I.C.I. At the moment Holland is offering sulphate of ammonia at £10 7s. 0d. a ton f.o.b. and I.C.I. I believe has tendered in India for 20,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia at £10 5s. 0d. f.o.b. in bulk. The fact that it is able to charge such a high price in this country is due undoubtedly to the fertiliser subsidy that the farmers are alleged to get from the Government. The Price Review contains this item—"fertiliser subsidy £33 million". I should like to have a break-down of exactly how much of this goes into the pockets of farmers and how much into the pockets of the manufacturers. The figure for sulphate of ammonia alone is possibly 700,000 to 800,000 tons, on Which I.C.I. is probably taking about £4 million. I.C.I. is taking £5 a ton out of the £8 subsidy and is leaving the farmers with £3, or much less.
We have just had a Supplementary Estimate for agriculture of £79 million, for which we willingly voted, but the farmers have again said "It is not going to us but to the butchers and middlemen." Today we are discussing an Order affecting fertilisers and it has been shown conclusively by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and others that the farmers are not getting the full benefit of the subsidy. It is going into the pockets of I.C.I. and other fertiliser manufacturers—probably £16 million of it.
It is time that we had an inquiry into the cost of production of sulphate of ammonia in Britain. This brings me back to the question of trade in general and I.C.I. in particular. I have with me a copy of this week's Chemical Age which contains a photograph of members of the staff of I.C.I. in Leipzig shaking hands with Herr Weiss, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade. I suppose it can be said that they are smiling. They might be described as adopting a sycophantic attitude to Herr Weiss. The magazine states:
I.C.I. does £5 million worth of business a year in Eastern Europe.


I am not surprised that they are smiling. I.C.I. also gave a reception in Leipzig, which I attended. It was held in the new town hall in, I think, what is called the "Hunters Room", complete with trophies on the walls, and paintings of hunting scenes, tail-coated waiters serving gin and tonic and whisky and soda—smoked salmon, slices of sausage, and even caviar—that sinister commodity.
Of course, the shareholders of I.C.I. were paying for this reception, and I have no doubt that they were pleased to do so, for their company is doing £5 million worth of business in Eastern Europe on their behalf. One bit of business I.C.I. is not doing. It is not importing East German sulphate of ammonia and that is perhaps why I.C.I. must come to the House and convince the Minister that its interests are being seriously damaged by the 3 per cent. in question.
It was agreed in Leipzig that the East German Government would not increase their exports beyond a figure which was acceptable to I.C.I. I.C.I.'s representatives said, at that point, "What can we do to get this Order rescinded? We do not want it now". I formed the impression they thought it was all a big mistake. This brings us back to the question of whether or not there is something political about it all. Is this the sort of double-talk that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne mentioned? This Order, I feel, will cost I.C.I. a great deal more than the amount of profit it hopes to make by selling an additional 15,000 tons out of its production of 800,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia on the home market.
It is an abuse of this House for an Order like this to have been brought forward. I am sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary, of whom I am fond, that he had to make the sort of speech he did. It contained all those phrases about "national interests", "grave damage" and so on, but it was not very convincing. It has been established beyond doubt that it is not the farmers of this country who are deriving the main benefit from the fertiliser subsidies and I hope that the Government will seriously look at this matter in the future.
The Government have introduced this Order at a time of year when sulphate of ammonia is most expensive. The mixers

—the people make the compound mixes—have been relying on getting fertiliser from Eastern Germany at a competitive price. When one must add £4 duty and freight charges there is not such a tremendous amount in it. But these people, the mixers, had been relying on a competitive product in their mixes. They are now surprised to find that this source of supply has suddenly been cut off and they must go cap in hand to I.C.I.—the agents for the British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation—and ask for a few tons. March is the time of year when the price of sulphate of ammonia in bulk is £18 2s. 6d. Had the Order been introduced in September the price would have been £17. In June and July the price is about £16 12s. 6d. This is when the manufacturers want to get their goods out of their factories. Storage is a problem, and if they can persuade the mixers or farmers to take fertilisers earlier in the season a discount is given.
As I say, we are forcing these independent mixers, who have tried to stand up against I.C.I., to go cap in hand and ask for a few tons of sulphate of ammonia. For that reason the Order is not only discourteous to the shippers but also to the mixers. The customers have certainly not really suffered any material damage, although they will suffer as a result of the Order.
What does the Minister mean when he talks about "the users"? Who are these users who are complaining? I have a letter from the Ministry which states:
This threatens material damage to the British industry.
It goes on:
After taking account of all the evidence and having given full consideration to the representations made and of the position of the users in this country …
But the users are the people who put this stuff on the land. They make up the compound mixture and sell it to the farmers at competitive prices. I do not think that their interests have been considered.
I could say a great deal more on this subject but suffice it to say that I am extremely sorry that the Minister has seen fit to bring in this Order. In the light of future events, I am sure it will be found to have been a great mistake.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that he found it an embarrassment to find himself in such support of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).

Mr. S. Silverman: I said that I thought that he would find it embarrassing.

Mr. Kimball: However, I wish to support the remarks made about increasing trade with Communist countries, particularly by methods of this kind. At the same time, when I saw the Order, I shared the feelings of many people that in any trade with Communist countries we must remember that trade is a political weapon and that the destruction of our trade here is a real aim among Communist countries. For that reason, we must be certain of their costing and methods of production.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Mr. Kimball: I am stating what is my belief and that of many other people.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he really is in favour—and I accept his sincerity when he says that he is—of developing trade with the Communist countries, he will find it difficult to do that and to bargain with them if an attitude of complete suspicion exists and if their objective in trading with him is not to be destroyed. They realise, as we do, that in spite of all the differing ideologies, trade is very necessary.

Mr. Kimball: As I said, I was merely voicing the feelings of many people. It was distressing to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) inform the House that I.C.I. does not want this Order. I hope that the Board of Trade will make a clear statement on this and say whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Skipton are true or otherwise.
I would like to know for how long the Order is to be continued. It is dated to start on 3rd March. Does it come up for renewal each year or does it go on until the House decides to rescind it? Having heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth and other hon. Members I feel that the Order should be with-drawn

and not put into operation until we have a little more information. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend will answer the questions which have been put during the debate.
As the next-door neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth, I do not want to be disloyal or appear to have any political split in Lincolnshire, but I would not support him in voting against the Order. We are all aware of his feelings about I.C.I. and other matters, but I think that the case he made was a case for the abolition of the fertiliser subsidy as we know it and not a case against this anti-dumping Order.
Hon. Members have pointed out how large a part of the Annual Price Review is formed by the fertiliser subsidy—£33 million this year or nearly £41 million if the lime subsidy is added. There is doubt about how much of that goes to the benefit of the farmers. But that is not a matter to be discussed this evening, although it is of interest to many of us who are interested in agriculture.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Assuming that I.C.I. has a monopoly in this commodity, is it not possible that the price will go higher and that in consequence the subsidies to farmers will go higher, so that we will have a vicious spiral? Because of that should we not take into account the issue of these subsidies in the context in which we are discussing them tonight?

Mr. Kimball: In fact, the price of fertilisers has fallen over the last few years. The increase in the subsidy is not because of an increase in price, but because of an increase in the use of fertilisers. Those of us who buy fertilisers have found that the price has gone down considerably—possibly because of the component parts coming from East Germany and other countries—but that is a fact that we must bear in mind. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will carefully consider this matter and will give us a convincing answer if he expects us to support the Order.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I did not intend to speak when I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate and I dare say that by the time I have finished what I am going to say I shall


wish that I had not spoken. I shall be the only Member so far to support the Government on this issue, with the notable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). I do so on straightforward grounds. It is fantastic that hon. Members representing the farming community should come here to support efforts to prevent the dumping of foodstuffs in this country and on another occasion should criticise the Government for imposing anti-dumping duties against the import of ammonium sulphate just because that is not in the interests of the farming community. Opposition to the Order is illogical on those grounds alone.
Some hon. Members have talked about I.C.I.'s monopoly in this country, but I do not believe that I.C.I. has a monopoly in fertilisers. Nitrogen fertilisers can and do come from Italy and Holland and the result of that over the last two or three years has been to force down the price of nitrogen fertilisers considerably. It has been said that the fertiliser subsidy goes into the hands of I.C.I., but that is not borne out by the Report of the Monopolies Commission. Over the last two years, at any rate, we have had a reduction in the fertiliser subsidy which has created more competition and also helped to bring down prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) said that we were losing a lot of money which was going into the pockets of I.C.I. and that that would be prevented if the products of East Germany were allowed to come in. He went on to say that this year we would have agreed to the import of only 15,000 tons anyway, which is about 3 per cent. of total production. He can have it one way, but he cannot have it both ways. Bringing in 3 per cent. will not have any great effect on the price of fertilisers or on the subsidy paid to British farmers.

Mr. Drayson: My point was that the overall figure for the total consumption of sulphate of ammonia at a subsidy of more than £8 a ton ran into many millions of pounds. I was saying that that went to I.C.I. rather than the farmer.

Mr. Prior: I do not agree. It is all very well to have a marginal amount of sulphate of ammonia coming in at £12 a ton, but we will not get all the sulphate

of ammonia we want from all over the world at £12 a ton. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) are well briefed on this issue, but I presume that I.C.I. are having to sell surplus tonnage to Ireland at a low price simply because it is purely surplus tonnage, and that in all probability, if we were not importing a few thousand tons from Eastern Germany at £12 a ton, I.C.I. would not be selling a few thousand tons to Ireland at £12 a ton. The position is ridiculous.
For hon. Members representing farming constituencies to come here and criticise the Board of Trade for introducing this anti-dumping legislation is extraordinary and fantastic. The Board of Trade could not have been much slower about introducing the Order. I am not patting my hon. Friend on the back about this. The Board of Trade took nine months to reach a decision, which is about the sort of time it takes when someone asks it to deal with agricultural problems. Yet hon. Members say that the decision was taken overnight. I think that far too much notice has been given. If this Order was to be introduced at all, I would have liked it to have been slapped on in about three weeks rather than nine months. One would have much more faith in antidumping legislation if that sort of action were taken. I am quite sure that the investigations were thorough—all too thorough knowing how hard it is to get the Board of Trade to put on any antidumping duties.
I give my full support to the Order, although I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us the answers to the questions which have been put which have not had a shred of argument to support them.

8.27 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I have found the debate interesting and stimulating, although I have to apologise for not having heard the Minister. I did not expect that the Order would come on so early and so I did not hear his argument for its introduction.
I went to Leipzig last year, and I was glad to do so. I went particularly because I wanted to see what the British contribution was. I always want to see what we have to offer abroad, and I was


very glad to be given the chance. The British contribution was very good indeed and I was fascinated when I went to the Steel Pavilion and saw what our big steel manufacturers were showing. I was not so pleased with the arguments put forward by the West German Government, although they are, of course, always entitled to say what they think. When I walked into the Steel Pavilion, the first thing which I saw was the Krupps exhibit, an enormous hull of a ship. I went to Leipzig with the idea of trying to get some shipbuilding orders for this country. It is tremendously important that our trade should be as free as possible. [Interruption.] I cannot enter into details about the farming industry, because I have not a farming community in my constituency, or at least only a very small one.
I am getting awfully tired of hearing that prices are going up. I am only too thankful when I hear that some prices might come down. I cannot help feeling that some interests in this country always want to keep prices up. If I.C.I. had to sell its surplus production to Eire because of the volume of imports into this country from Eastern Germany, I do not see why it did not enter into competition in this country and reduce the price of its products here. That would have been a very good and stimulating form of competition. There is no need for I.C.I. to sell it outside this country. In the discussions in the Committees on which I sit—and I sit on quite a number—we are always talking about rising prices. This seems to suit certain people. As I say, I am only too glad When I hear that prices are to be reduced for a change.
I often find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), but not with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) or, perhaps, with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson). However, on this occasion I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton but not with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who pointed out that the Board of Trade had taken nine months to introduce this Order. I suppose that that was because it did not suit the Board of Trade to introduce it earlier. I understand that

the reason why sulphate of ammonia has been imported from Eastern Germany, for I do not know how many years, is that there was a shortage of it in this country. When it suited us we allowed it to come in. When it suits I.C.I., it comes in. When it does not suit I.C.I. it says that it should not come in.
I should like to have all the facts put before me properly. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did present the facts properly, but I do not think that he can have done because many new points which required answers have been raised since he spoke. Can my hon. Friend proceed on the basis that most people in this country would like to hear that some prices are coming down. I do not think that a little competition in this sphere would come amiss. I do not feel like supporting the Order at this stage unless we have a much better explanation about why it is necessary. If it is necessary, why did the Board of Trade wait nine months before introducing it? If it is necessary, it should have been introduced much earlier.
As I have said, I was glad to have the opportunity of going to Leipzig. Many people should see a great deal more of the world before they start talking on things about which they sometimes have not much knowledge. I do not know whether we shall have a vote on this, but I shall take a great deal of convincing that after nine months this Order is necessary. It is not that I have not a great affection for I.C.I., but, occasionally, it wants a bit of a crack on the head as well.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: By leave of the House, may I respond at once to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) rather took the words out of my mouth. It is true that we in the Board of Trade are under constant pressure to protect industry and agriculture from dumping. When the Government do so, I should like to think that they deserve and will receive support. On the other hand, the House does not readily listen to a long exposition of an affirmative Order in the first place. I therefore respond willingly to the invitation to speak again, and I am grateful


to the House for its agreement that I should do so.
I recognise that the House is not only entitled to look very closely at antidumping Orders, but that it would not be doing its duty if it did not do so. I hope that I shall be able to convince the House that this Order is justified, even though most of the speeches have been critical of it.
Proposals for anti-dumping duties are not laid lightly before the House. They are not proposed with the object of interfering with ordinary commercial competition, or to raise a barrier to trade on fair terms with the countries concerned. But, when it is established after proper investigations that certain imports are threatening material injury to a British industry, that industry can reasonably look to the safeguards which the anti-dumping legislation was designed to provide. I hope to satisfy the House that these safeguards are required in this case.
May I, at the outset, apologise to the House for a misstatement in my earlier remarks. I said that the Press notice was issued on 27th April. It was actually issued on 2nd March, 1962. I looked by mistake at the Press notice for 1960 on West German and Belgian ammonium sulphate instead of at the Press notice on East German ammonium sulphate.
I do not complain in the slightest of the way that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) probed this matter. Of course, in dealing with East Germany the situation in respect of this Act is bound to be difficult. I shall come to that shortly in my speech. The first point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there was some suggestion that we were trying to dissuade and discourage trade between the two countries. I assure the House that there is no reluctance to trade with East Germany.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there is a conflict between what he is saying and what the Lord Privy Seal said the other day in a very similar connection? If there is a conflict between the Foreign Office and the Board of trade which cannot be resolved, why not ask for the Home Secretary's assistance, which the Government have done in other respects?

Mr. Macpherson: There is no conflict between what the Lord Privy Seal said and the attitude of the Board of Trade. I have the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal here if anyone would like me to quote them. He said, in effect, that those who go either to trade or to visit are liable to be used for political purposes. He was merely giving a warning that that was so.
I was about to refer to the trend of trade. Imports from East Germany in 1958 amounted to £3,407,000, and in 1961 to £6,694,000. Exports amounted to £2,278,000 in 1958 and to £8,221,000 in 1961. This rapid increase certainly does not bear testimony to any desire of the Government to interfere with trade. There is no boycott, but we are in the difficulty that there are no direct relations between the two Governments.
I come to the second point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the dominant position of I.C.I. I think that it would be to the advantage of the debate if I were to say something about the structure of this industry. It consists of two parts. One side is the amount of sulphate of ammonia produced as a by-product by the National Coal Board, the Electricity Board, steel works, coke ovens, and so forth. The other side is the synthetic process such as is used by I.C.I.
The fact is that the synthetic process is such that it is uneconomic to operate a plant at less than full capacitly. It is generally more economic to export any surplus over what is required in the home country than to operate a plant at half cock. That applies generally, and it is a fact that prices in European producing countries with synthetic processes are very much on a level with each other, but when they come to dispose of their surpluses outside their own countries they enter into very keen competition with each other, and that forces the prices down.
If we were to allow our own production in this country to be disrupted and our major producers to be forced out of production, what would happen is quite clear: at some times when there was surplus capacity and surplus production in the world we should be able to obtain our supplies at very low prices, but at other times, when there was a shortage in the world, we should have


to pay very high prices indeed. It is normally accepted by industrial countries which also have agricultural interests that they should produce their own sulphate of ammonia and that they should have a synthetic process capable of matching that requirement, taking the production of by-products of sulphate of ammonia from the various plants into account.
The I.C.I. acts as the selling agent for the British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation. Indeed, it not only acts as the selling agent, but produces about 70 per cent. of the Federation's total output. The two together have not an entire monopoly of the production of sulphate of ammonia in this country but between them they produce about 90 per cent. There are some 35 byproducts producers who are members of the British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation.
It is a fact that the I.C.I. commands a virtual monopoly in this country, from the literal meaning of the word, of the selling of sulphate of ammonia, and that is why the Monopolies Commission was invited to look into the activities of the supply of chemical fertilisers. In paragraph 651 of its Report the Monopolies Commission said:
We would not consider ourselves justified in regarding the level of profits achieved in recent years as unduly high.
Since then, I am glad to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, prices in this country have come down on two occasions.
But it does not follow from this that we should allow the industry in this country to be disrupted, and that was why in 1960 we took the view, on very much the same grounds, that there was dumping from West Germany and from Belgium and that it would be right for us to take action. The action which we then took resulted in agreement by these two countries to increase the price, but the difficulty is that if we were now to allow dumping from East Germany, obviously the Belgians and the West Germans would begin to wonder whether they ought to reconsider their decision to increase the price and whether they ought to send their surplus products to this country.

Mr. Jay: Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that these arguments justify I.C.I. in charging £18 or £20 a ton to the British farmer? How does he justify that?

Mr. Macpherson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) that prices vary throughout the year. They start at the relatively low level of just over £16 in June, and they rise to their highest level at this time of year, but at that level of price, and taking account of the sales abroad, the I.C.I. are certainly not making an excessive profit. Indeed, it is on home sales, the Commission found, that I.C.I. was not making excessive profits. The Commission said that the level of profit achieved in recent years was not unduly high.
Then I am asked: why is it I.C.I. can sell at such low prices—for example, to the Republic of Ireland? The answer is, of course, the one I have already given, that the company is in competition abroad and prices are extremely keen, and competition is extremely keen, and those prices have to be matched. It does not follow necessarily that the company is selling at a profit abroad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dumping."] Not dumping, because, of course, there is no synthetic production of sulphate of ammonia in the Republic of Ireland and the Republic has to import fertilisers, and, of course, the lower the prices at which they can import, as they have no industry of their own with which to compete, the better for them.

Mr. Jay: Since we are told that I.C.I. is selling at £10 a ton in India, can the hon. Gentleman say whether he considers that to be dumping?

Mr. Macpherson: £10 f.o.b. prices. I understand there is an enormous deficiency of fertilisers in India, and it is obviously doing the Indians a very great service indeed to be able to export to them at a low price.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this really does impose a most unfair burden on the farmers of Northern Ireland who are in competition with the producers in Southern Ireland? Does he realise—I dare say that he does, because of the demands of affairs of State—that it really will be extraordinarily hard to explain to the farmers in Northern Ireland why


they should have to pay between £6 and £8 a ton more than those with whom they compete?

Mr. Macpherson: Well, the farmers in Northern Ireland do get a share of the fertiliser subsidy. [Interruption.] It simply is not true that I.C.I. receives a subsidy from the taxpayer. The fertiliser subsidy is paid to the farmers, who buy their fertilisers at no more than the economic price from I.C.I. and from the other manufacturers as well, but who get them at a cost to their own pocket of considerably less than the economic price.

Mr. Drayson: My hon. Friend was quoting from paragraph 651 of the Monopolies Commission's Report, but he did not complete it. What is said here, on page 207, is that
We believe that I.C.I. has acted with a sense of responsibility up to the present".

Mr. S. Silverman: What was the date of that?

Mr. Drayson: 1959. I think that that suggests that the Monopolies Commission had some misgiving whether the company would continue to do so in the future. It went on to say that
we would view with some disquiet the possibility that in this subsidised market the company might in future achieve profit levels higher than in recent years and perhaps above the average for manufacturing industry generally.
Can my hon. Friend give us some concrete details about the level of profits on this particular commodity, and say whether they are above the average of those of manufacturing industry generally?

Mr. Macpherson: All I would say to my hon. Friend is, first, that since that date, as I have already said, there have been two reductions in prices, and the price has been reduced by about £1.
Perhaps I could draw attention to the fact that paragraph 649 of the Report—and I am sure my hon. Friend must be aware of this—makes a comparison between the profits on the sale of fertilisers and those in the manufacturing chemical and paint industries. It shows that the profits on fertilisers are not out of line with other profits. These profits are calculated on the basis of historical costs, which is not the way in which I.C.I. calculates its profits.
I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). I am sorry that he is not in his place. He asked whether we were bolstering an inefficient industry. At present, I.C.I. is spending about £6 million on improving its plant at Billing-ham. There is no question of I.C.I. not being forward-looking or progressive.
The farmers expect to make a fair return and they apply for dumping duties, and I do not think they should deny a fair return to others. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth said that prices had not come down by nearly as much as they would have done if importations had been allowed. That may well be so, but what is the good of crippling our home industry to allow other countries to dump in this country? We must maintain a sound industry in this country and have a steady level of prices.
The duty of £4 per ton to which my hon. Friend referred has been in force since 1935. A figure of £4 per ton in 1935 was a different kind of protection from £4 per ton today. There is a great deal less protection now than there was in those days.

Mr. A. Lewis: During his speech the hon. Gentleman mentioned £10, £16, £18 and £20 as the price per ton of sulphate of ammonia. Prices have fluctuated both on the export and the home market. What does the hon. Gentleman consider to be a reasonable price? At what price would he sell this product? I hope that he will give us this information so that we can decide whether the imports are being sold at a cut price rate.

Mr. Macpherson: The whole purpose has been to maintain prices at a reasonably stable level in this country. I have said that prices have been reduced twice, and that the price is comparable with that in other producing countries abroad. Every country needs to dispose of its surplus production.
I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth quoted an article from the Financial Times, but did not seem to understand its purport. If we want to maintain reasonably fair prices and give a reasonable level of profit to our producers and thus enable them to increase their efficiency, we must ensure


that our home production is not damaged by dumping. That is one reason why we introduced the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957.
In answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), it is not only on home prices that under the Act we are able to estimate whether there is dumping or not. The hon. Gentleman may know this, but he did not say so. Section 7 (3) of the Act says:
If it appears to the Board of Trade that goods of that description are not being sold in the said country, or not in such circumstances that the fair market price can be determined"—
which is, of course, the case in the Communist countries—
… the fair market price shall be determined by the Board by reference to any price obtained for goods of that description when exported from the said country …
That is what we have done. We are quite satisfied that this matter has been fully investigated and that damage is threatened. I do not say that it actually occurred; it does not need to occur. But I hope I have made it plain that it is in the national interests that damage should not occur. I hope that the House will accept the Order.

Dame Irene Ward: Might we hear about the nine months?

Mr. Macpherson: I am sure that my hon. Friend would accept that a matter of this kind should be very fully investigated.

Dame Irene Ward: Surely it should not take nine months.

Mr. Macpherson: I made the point earlier that in dealing with Communist countries there are special difficulties. I hope that my hon. Friend is now satisfied that this matter has been fully investigated. In some cases it is possible to reach a conclusion very quickly, but not in all. The nine months is merely evidence that the matter has been fully investigated.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Jay: If I may speak briefly again by leave of the House, in our opinion the Minister has totally failed to discharge his responsibility of defending the Order. In particular, he has given no evidence at all that any damage is threatened to the national interest except from competition with I.C.I. Therefore, I should like him to think again, withdraw the Order now, consider it and investigate it fully, and come back here when he really has some serious arguments to present to us. If he is not willing to do that, we shall feel bound to divide the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The Question is—

Mr. James Callaghan: Are we not to have some consideration of the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay)? The Leader of the House is with us this evening. There has been some very damaging criticism about the Order from both sides of the House. It was not our intention to divide against the Order, but my right hon. Friend has suggested that further consideration should be given to the matter and perhaps some further arguments should be put. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Leader of the House, whether it would not be appropriate at this stage to withdraw the Order and bring it forward again when it is possible to answer the points which have been raised.

Mr. Macpherson: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I think that the vote, if it comes to a vote, will show whether or not I have answered the points satisfactorily. I have done my best to answer all the questions raised. I think I have satisfactorily shown that there has been dumping and that damage is threatened to the industry. I have tried to make it clear that if that damage eventuated it would be against the national interest.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 96.

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[8.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bourne-Arton, A.


Aitken, W. T.
Bidgood, John C.
Box, Donald


Balniel, Lord
Biffen, John
Boyle, Sir Edward


Barber, Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John
Braine, Bernard


Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.
Brewis, John


Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)




Buck, Anony
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E. B., (S. Norfolk)
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hollingworth, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cihchester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Collard, Richard
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Seymour, Leslie


Corfield, F. V.
Jackson, John
Shaw, M.


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Shepherd, William


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smithers, Peter


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Speir, Rupert


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kimball, Marcus
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Duncan, Sir James
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, Gilmour
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Sir John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Goodhart, Philip
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walder, David


Goodhew, Victor
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Mills, Stratton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitelaw, William


Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woollam, John


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.


Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall





NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Paget, R. T,


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Parker, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holt, Arthur
Pentland, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Blackburn, F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Redhead, E. C.


Blyton, William
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Callaghan, James
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N,)


Cliffe, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
Lubbock, E.
Taverne, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McCann, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, Archie C.
Timmons, John


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Cooch, E. G.
Milne, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.



Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herblson, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Grey.

Resolved,

That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 419), dated 26th February,

1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be refererd to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Whereupon not less than ten Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RECORDS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the functions of local authorities with respect to records in written or other form, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums so payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scoltand.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, BIRMINGHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: This is certainly a moment for a feeling of gratitude that I have the opportunity of placing before the House the grave housing problem of the City of Birmingham. I have raised this question on a number of occasions on the Motion for the Adjournment during the last seventeen years. My maiden speech seventeen years ago referred to the housing problem of Birmingham. On that occasion I mentioned that there were 50,000 houses in Birmingham unfit for human habitation. I am sorry to have to say that now, seventeen years after

the war, the housing problem in Birmingham consists of 47,000 houses unfit for human habitation and another 49,000 people registered as waiting for houses including 30,000 families who are living in rooms.
The immediate need for Birmingham is 77,000 houses. It does not include people likely to go on the register in the near future or in years to come; it is the immediate need. Rejecting a recent scheme for building 7,000 houses at Wythall, the Minister has added to the very serious problem which the city now has to face. I wish to refer to the Minister's letter in which he rejected Birmingham's application to be allowed to build approximately 7,000 houses at Wythall.
It should be remembered that for ten solid years the Government objected to the idea of a new town for Birmingham. Birmingham was compelled to ask to be allowed to extend her boundaries. It was not until last August that the predecessor of the present Minister came to the conclusion that Birmingham's housing need was sufficiently serious to warrant the inclusion of a new town.
The request to be allowed to build houses at Wythall was made only to meet the problem which would arise in the city because of the shortage of land until such time as a new town or other great development could be put in hand. The Minister has rejected this scheme. It would have enabled Birmingham to have an interim scheme. In his letter of refusal, the Minister speaks of the factors which have influenced him in his decision, but he used these words:
Against these factors stand Birmingham's housing needs, the large size, urgency and the importance of which are undisputed. The Minister agrees with his Inspector's comments on Birmingham's position, in particular, that their building programme, the present level of which seems inadequate for the needs, can continue for at most four years or so on land which is now foreseen to be available.
That is the letter from the Minister on 28th February in which he declined to agree to the Wythall scheme.
I should like to bring to the notice of the House the previous Minister's letter of 30th August to the Warwickshire and Worcestershire County Councils in which he said:
The Government have given very careful consideration to this matter and have reached


the conclusion that the following measures taken together would provide a satisfactory solution of the immediate problem.
The measures included major town expansion schemes at Daventry, Redditch and Worcester, the adjustment of the boundary at Wythall enabling the city to build 7,000 houses on 600 acres of land and a new town at Dawley. These were the measures that the Minister concluded were absolutely necessary. Would they meet the immediate need of Birmingham?
I now refer to a letter from the Ministry in January this year referring to the letter from which I have just quoted and stating that even if all those proposals matured there would be a deficiency of 120,000 to 130,000 dwellings by 1981. Even with a new town, with major town development schemes and with Wythall, there would still be a deficiency of that magnitude within twenty years. The Minister must tell us that he now puts the figure even higher in view of his refusal for Wythall. The position, therefore, is very much worse.
In paragraph 4 of his letter the Minister stated that efforts should be directed to ensuring the maximum rehousing, so that less of the uneconomic and unsatisfactory patching of old unfit properties was needed. Where does the Minister think that the effort should be directed? I have asked him by Question and he tells me that major contributions can be made at Redditch, Worcester and Daventry and that he is considering a new town.
We are entitled to ask the Minister why he has held us up for so long before making an announcement about a new town. Surely, if he was reversing his predecessor's view he should have told the House that his alternative now includes a new town and other developments. He has not told us that yet. We are pressing him week after week to make a statement. He tells us that he has a report about the new town and that he will make a statement as soon as possible.
Assuming that all that the Minister has in mind comes to fruition, how will it affect the uneconomic and unsatisfactory patching of old, unfit properties? I cannot see how this can be effected under the Minister's calculations. I

have mentioned that there are 47,000 unfit houses. There has been considerable expenditure on reconditioning. Birmingham has spent over £8 million on reconditioning unhealthy properties and the houses that Birmingham has reconditioned have a life of only fifteen years. Therefore, in the years to come, many more houses will fall obsolete and need reconditioning.
I have asked the Minister what grant has been made towards the reconditioning. If he is anxious for Birmingham to reduce its expenditure on the patching-up of houses, he might ask himself whether he has made a fair deal with the corporation in this regard. He has told me that in the last eight years Government grants for this purpose totalled £1,148,000. The Birmingham housing manager tells me that the rate fund contribution was £1,724,000. This was supposed to be equality between the Government and the local authority. How does it come about that the rates have had to find £1,724,000 in the last eight years whereas the Government have contributed only £1,148,000?
The housing manager states to me that in theory these two amounts should be equal, but that the Minister has declined to review the basis of grant fixed in 1954 and has left the city to bear the rising costs of labour and materials. If the Minister thinks that Birmingham should be more generous in regard to this problem, he must ask himself whether he is giving the city a fair deal. When he made the arrangement with Birmingham it cost approximately £150 to recondition a house. In 1961 the average cost of reconditioning was £390. The city has had to bear the increased cost of labour and materials.
In paragraph 5 we are told that the inspector did not feel able on what has been said at the inquiry and on his inspection of the district to make a firm recommendation. The inspector on all the evidence he had was not able to make a firm recommendation. Nevertheless, he offered the unhesitating conclusion that the decision should rest on whether or not reception capacity beyond the green belt could be assured by 1966 for a city housing programme of at least 2,500 houses per annum.
Birmingham has not been able to achieve this figure so far because of the


shortage of labour. Labour is being absorbed on big buildings. There is no priority. The Government have no priority. Only two days ago I was informed that at no time had Birmingham had so many houses in the pipeline awaiting completion because of the shortage of labour. Over 5,000 houses are waiting to be completed. The Government are taking no action to assist the city.
At present it seems physically impossible to produce, even with the houses from overspill, much more than 2,200 houses a year. As I understand it, to meet the need of 77,000 houses it would take over thirty years. This is the gravest problem facing the city. I represent a constituency which, throughout the whole time I have been in the House, has been faced with this grave problem. My hon. Friends who represent Birmingham constituencies will agree that there is no problem in Birmingham which causes more misery and pain that this. No problem threatens the happiness and future of the citizens of Birmingham to the extent that this does.
The estimate of 2,500 houses is inadequate. On what did the Minister base this? He said that he had not estimated 2,500. It appears from the letter that the decision to reject Wythall is based upon the assumption that the figure of 2,500 annually can be maintained.
I come to the number of houses in Birmingham for which no provision has been made. I refer to the houses which are becoming or are likely to become obsolescent, for which there is no provision. The city is trying to meet the immediate need and not the need of the houses which are likely to become obsolescent in the future. I will tell the House at what rate Birmingham considers that obsolescence is likely to occur. It is very simple. There are 312,000 houses in Birmingham. Does the Minister think that a house ought to be put up for more than 100 years? Ought it to be put up for 100 years? If the life of a house is 100 years, does it not mean that, on average, approximately 3,000 houses become obsolescent each year for which some provision should be made?
I have tabled Questions to the Minister about this. In order to make my position clear I wrote to the Minister

and told him on what I based my estimate of 3,000 houses becoming obsolescent each year. I have not yet received an answer to my letter, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answered a Question of mine which appears on today's Order Paper. In my letter to the Minister of 8th March I said that all the estimates did not take into account provision for 3,000 houses which become obsolescent each year, assuming the life of the present houses in Birmingham, numbering over 300,000, to be no longer than 100 years. I said that the provision of one new town to house 60,000 people, even if this was announced immediately, would nowhere meet the mounting need in Birmingham and that at least two or three towns are needed.
I asked the Minister this Question today:
In view of the fact that 3,000 houses are becoming obsolete each year in Birmingham, with a consequent increase in the number of homeless families, if he will seek information from the local authority with a view to estimating the increased expenditure needed to rehouse those people who are additional to the number already estimated at present to be in need of accommodation.
He replied:
No, Sir. Such an estimate would be of no practical value … I do not know how the hon. Member has arrived at his estimate of the rate of obsolescence ".
Surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should have known that I had written a letter to the Minister and that I had estimated the rate of obsolescence. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the source of my information, it was the Corporation of Birmingham. I discussed this matter with the town clerk and the housing manager and they agreed with this figure. Thus, if the Minister does not know anything about this he should acquaint himself with the facts of the problem and say how many additional houses are needed.
I am sure that I am giving a conservative estimate when I say—and I give this figure on behalf of the officials of Birmingham Corporation—that the city requires at least 5,000 houses a year. Even then the housing problem would not be quickly solved. What is to be done about our difficulties in Birmingham? The Minister says that he is anxious that everyone should cooperate. I am sure that Birmingham—and hon. Members representing the


City will support me in this—is only too ready to co-operate. The situation demands full co-operation, but, despite that, the Minister must say what he intends to do. Does he intend to assist in any additional cost that may be involved?
When we think in terms of additional expenditure by cities such as Birmingham many illustrations come to mind. I will give one. If it were possible to build 18,000 houses in Redditch, taking into account the Ministry's allowances, it would cost an additional 3d. on Birmingham's rates for fifteen years. The scheme would cost £216,000 a year and Birmingham would have to pay that according to the last housing legislation and the figure of £12 per house for the recipient areas over fifteen years. That illustration is for 18,000 houses, but that would not even touch the problem.
I notice that Redditch strongly objected to the Government's meanness in this regard. The subsidy was increased from £24 to £28, or about 17 per cent., whereas in his last housing legislation the Minister increased the amount payable by Birmingham and other authorities from £8 to £12 for 15 years instead of ten years. In his pronouncements the Minister should not only request authorities like Birmingham to do everything they can but should also say what he intends to do to encourage and assist them. Naturally, if thousands of houses are to be built beyond city boundaries, with the resultant great financial burden, the Minister should say what help he intends to give.
I have had longer to present this problem tonight than is usual in an Adjournment debate. I am sure that my hon. Friends are anxious to say something about this matter and I will now summarise what I have been saying. If the Minister says that Birmingham cannot extend its boundaries, then in principle he admits the need for a new town. We are anxiously awaiting his statement which should have been made before now. How long must we continue to wait? Even assuming the other schemes to be practicable, one new town for Birmingham will not suffice. The urgent thing is to decide on two new towns, and if we are to prepare for the possible obsolescence of houses at the rate I have mentioned, not even two new towns would meet Birmingham's problem.
Cannot the Minister have a drive to bring pressure on all authorities so that we can get the maximum co-operation for dealing with this problem and so that major schemes can be started? There is a case for a revision of the Government's financial arrangements, especially as Birmingham is making such a large contribution towards reconditioning, now far in excess of that made by the Minister.
I do not know how to describe the effect of this problem. I had always hoped that within my lifetime there would be some hope for the homeless families and for the many people living in the most appalling conditions in Birmingham. But I cannot see any hope for some years of a solution to this problem unless the Government can be made to understand how grave it is. I do not believe that there is any other area where the housing problem is worse and that is why I am asking for special consideration. I realise that other areas, such as Scotland, have great problems and I know the difficulties which Scotland has had in arguing its case for new towns. But the Minister is now convinced of the need for a new town for Birmingham, which we have been advocating for years. He has accepted it rather late, but we still do not know when it will be announced although the available land in Birmingham will run out in four years.
I have raised this subject because I have seen so much suffering and so much exploitation. Only a few days ago I came across one of the worst cases of exploitation. This concerns a constituent of mine who has a family of eight children and who lives in a furnished house for which he has had to pay £12 a week rent. It is the worst case that I have come across. Because he refused to pay £14 a week, he is now under the threat of eviction and is likely to be turned out on the streets. This happens only because the problem is so grave. The other day, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Seymour) said that it was not Christian to bring people from abroad to live in dreadful conditions such as those which exist in Birmingham. He must realise that it is also not Christian that Birmingham people should live in such conditions.

Mr. Leslie Seymour: I do.

Mr. Yates: I realise that the problem of immigration has added to the difficulties, even though in most cases the immigrants are buying their own houses. They are not competing in very large numbers with those wanting to be housed under local authority housing schemes. The longer this problem goes unsolved the worse it becomes.
I was much impressed by the comment of the Conservative spokesman on Birmingham's Housing Management Committee when the Wythall scheme was rejected. Alderman W. T. Griffin, in referring to the appalling problem of rehousing people living in congested conditions and in what he called an atmosphere of absolute misery and dejection, is reported in the Birmingham Mail as having said that
thousands of women
are
struggling to bring up their families in the black slum areas of this City. The news must be a bitter disappointment to all of us who have regard to the misery of those thousands of people who seek no more than a reasonable home of their own.
I echo those words because those of us who know anything about the problem will agree that that is the effect.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a firm assurance that the Minister understands that this problem is as big as I believe it to be. I do not think that I have exaggerated it. I hope that the Minister will give us a message of hope for the people who are suffering under nightmare conditions which I hoped would have been removed years ago.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates) for raising this matter tonight. Those of us who know Birmingham realise that the facts which he has given are substantially correct. The figures which he quoted may be read in different ways, but, by and large, I do not think that he has overstated the problem.
This has been a serious problem in Birmingham for almost the whole of the last thirty years. Even in the 1930s there was a very large waiting list for houses.

Mr. Denis Howell: Many people were unemployed then.

Mr. Gurden: In the time which has elapsed since then, the local authority and the Government, both Conservative and Labour, have been unable to solve the problem. Excuses can be made that the war has intervened and that other factors have been responsible for it, but I suggest that the greatest single problem which faces the local authority and, indeed, the Government is the continuous flow of people into the city from literally everywhere. It has always been so. Before the war and since, no matter how many houses have been built in Birmingham both by private enterprise and by the municipal authority, it has not been possible to solve the problem or to get anywhere near to solving it because of the continuous inflow from all over the world.

Mr. Julius Silverman: In the last few years there has been a decline.

Mr. Gurden: There is a slight sign that recently there has been a decline. I am not sure whether the figures, if they were taken fully and accurately, would show a continuation of that decline.
There is also the problem that the local authority, with the resources at its command, has not been able to keep pace in the building of new houses with the demolition which has taken place. The only criticism which I have of note of the local authority at any time is that it has indulged in widespread demolition of houses which could have remained for a time until the number in the pipeline, to which the hon. Gentleman quite rightly referred, had been somewhat reduced.

Mr. J. Silverman: Can the hon. Member mention any other local authority which has patched up and repaired more houses and made them habitable than the local authority in the city of Birmingham?

Mr. Gurden: That is quite true. I suppose that Birmingham has done exceptionally well in this. But it has been knocking houses down at a very fast rate. In the hon. Member's constituency of Ladywood there are vast areas which have been laid waste for a long time. At least the people would have had roofs over their heads if some


of those houses are retained until the authority is in a position to proceed with new building. In one case I know that land has been available for about three years. The local authority might consider whether it is not time to slow up just a little with demolition and clearance. Much as we should like to see the disappearance of some of these slums, it is time to consider whether we cannot reduce the number of houses in the pipeline.

Mr. V. Yates: The hon. Member referred to open spaces. All the open spaces in Ladywood and other areas are under consideration for building sites but the Minister in his report referred to higher density building, use of open space within the city for development and possibly out-county estates, but the inspector rejected ail these and concluded that no alleviation of the problem could be found in such directions.

Mr. Gurden: I am not suggesting that what I am putting forward could be a solution to the housing problem in Birmingham. I am saying that the local authority should perhaps have second thoughts about the speed with which sites are being cleared until it can at least pick up on housing. The figure quoted of 5,000 houses in the pipeline, quite rightly, by the hon. Member, is, after all, a justification of the Government's policy. It shows that there is a need to wait until they can catch up a little with building before further sites are available. It is no use even today to have a site like Dawley—and I support the hon. Member in saying that the Government ought to give an answer very quickly about Dawley—if little use could be made of it for the next twelve months. There is more building to be done in Birmingham than the local authority can cope with. Nevertheless, we must have an answer very quickly from the Government about Dawley. I appreciate that the local authority has been preparing a report, through one of its officers, for the Government, in order that an announcement may be made.
But the fact remains that the number of houses in the pipeline is excessive. I hope tonight to avoid any local authority political arguments, because both the Conservative and Labour Parties, when in control, have been

unable to provide a solution to this problem which, it seems to me, will ever be with us in Birmingham—at least, as long as there is no power and no attempt to prevent people from coming into Birmingham. They certainly come into the town faster than houses can ever be built.
One other factor which ought to be considered is the rebuilding of the city centre, where enormous blocks of offices have been built, even perhaps beyond the demand for them—or, so it appears, in view of the number of offices which are still vacant. I should have liked to see some of these blocks of offices planned to contain a number of flats for those who do not wish to live in the suburbs and to travel long distances, using much valuable time in doing so. The planning authorities of Birmingham might suggest to the planners that some flats should be built in the city centre.
The same problem is arising in Birmingham as has arisen in London. The centre of the city is empty at weekends, and during the week people have to travel long distances into the suburbs with only the roads as a means of transport. There are hardly any railway services of any use to take them into the suburbs. People are certainly entitled to ask why we have continuous new office building in the city, perhaps more than is required, which at the same time absorbs an enormous amount of building labour.
I join the hon. Member in the appeal which he made to the Minister about new towns. Will the Minister tell us that he is prepared to give a decision about Dawley? This is a site to which we all look forward for the building of a new town. Will he not then go even further and say whether Swynnerton is to be considered? The sooner we have one or two new towns for the Midlands the better.
Nevertheless, this does not absolve the local authority from its responsibility in trying to come to terms with other towns around the City of Birmingham, such as Droitwich and others. I will accept the figure given by the hon. Member for a 3d. rate, but even then it might be worthwhile to accept this burden in return for 18,000 houses. Surely the local authorities of this Midlands conurbation ought to be able to get together and to reach agreement on a problem which is so


serious. If, as the hon. Member said, it will cost an extra 3d. rate, one would have thought that it was worth a 3d. rate when the situation is as serious as he suggested. Perhaps there might be a saving to Birmingham to set off against that rate increase. I do not know. People who live in Droitwich and other towns can be persuaded, I think, to help in this problem.
I hope the Minister will be able to help us tonight with a decision about Dawley, that he will at least tell us that a decision will be made within a matter of days. In the meantime we ought to appeal to the Birmingham City Council to look at some of these points which we have mentioned tonight, such as the city centre and reducing the number in the pipeline. Let us get on with building as fast as we can, using up the derelict land. People waiting on the housing list in Birmingham must be hurt at seeing that land lying idle for two or three years. We shall all be interested in what the Minister has to say to us tonight.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has performed a service to this House and to the City of Birmingham in raising this important matter. I do not want to take issue with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) because we do not raise this as a political and party issue. Our object is simply to put before the Minister the dire needs of Birmingham
There is, however, just one point on which I would take issue with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Selly Oak, and it is this. He mentioned the question of too many houses being demolished. That means, of course, slum clearance, and this was precisely in accordance with the Government's policy as announced by—I think it was—the predecessor next but one of the present Minister who deliberately abolished the ordinary housing subsidy and retained the slum clearance subsidy for the express purpose of trying to persuade local authorities—or so he said—to demolish more slums.

Mr. Gurden: Assuming, of course, always, as we all did, that the local

authority would immediately replace them with new houses.

Mr. Silverman: Of course, these sites are for building houses—not next week, but in a reasonable time.

Mr. Denis Howell: And factories?

Mr. Silverman: There have been certain difficulties, of course, with building contractors, but that was the Government's policy, and that is what Birmingham is doing.
Birmingham is doing a slum clearance programme plus a certain amount of new housing and it is quite comprehensible that the City of Birmingham with housing sites for somewhere between 6,000 or 7,000 new houses apart from slum clearance is not anxious to exhaust right away within the next year or two the whole of it building land which, in any event, I think it is not denied, will last for only four years. Therefore, I do not think there is any point in criticising the local authority upon this issue. It is doing the best it can in difficult circumstances.
What we want to find out is how the Minister can assist the situation, because there is no doubt whatsoever that the Minister's decision upon Wythall is a complete volte face from what it appeared his predecessor had definitely decided. We want some explanation, and the first thing we want to ask the Minister is, why? Because the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had said fairly definitely—he almost said it as a definite decision—that Wythall would be taken out of the prospective green belt, which is not, in fact, a hard and fast green belt, and would be used for housing for Birmingham.

Mr. Denis Howell: Exactly a year ago tonight the Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to Small Heath on the eve of the by-election and said that he had seen houses such as he did not think existed in this country, that they were the worst he had ever seen. He went back and, to give him credit, announced that he thought that 600 acres of land outside the city ought to be used. I hope my hon. Friend will agree—and I am glad he is coming to this important point—that there cannot be two views about the fact that for twelve months the city, the Government, everybody has been concentrating on the


Government policy for 600 acres in Wythall and that that is now turned down by the present Minister, after a complete waste of twelve months, and that the corollary must be some energetic action by the Government.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Batsford.]

Mr. Silverman: There is nothing in this Report which was not known when the original announcement was made. One cannot help feeling that certain influences have been brought to bear from this area. The gentlemen who live in the green belt and have green fields around them do not care about the slums of Birmingham. The question is whether they have a kind of vested interest which overrides the interests of the people in need of houses.
Having turned down Wythall, where will these overspill houses be built? Dawley has been mentioned. I hope that the Minister will make an announcement about this shortly. We want no dillydally over Dawley. I hope that we have an early decision on this matter, because a lot of time has already been wasted and the situation is getting worse.
Even if the Government decide to use Dawley as an overspill area, it is obvious that in 1966 this scheme will not make any significant contribution to Birmingham's overspill. Where will the houses that are necessary be built? Birmingham has been asked to negotiate with various surrounding areas, and these have been mentioned. I hope that these negotiations will be successful. So far, they have not produced very much by way of results.
I hope that the Government will intervene more actively. If they adopt the same attitude over this as they have over Wythall, and say that other local authorities do not want Birmingham tenants, there will not be many areas in which Birmingham will be able to build. What is the Minister thinking about? Birmingham is conducting negotiations in many areas. So far, these negotiations have resulted in about

1,800 houses being built for Birmingham's overspill population. I do not know how these local authorities can be persuaded to take 2,500 a year of Birmingham's overspill.
It has been suggested that Birmingham is not offering sufficient inducements to other local authorities to take its overspill. This may be so; I do not know. But even if Birmingham offered more, this would not make much difference. If Birmingham increased its contribution by 50 per cent., local authorities would still have to consider two factors. First, the increased cost of building houses, and, secondly, the increased rates of interest.
Another factor to be considered is the distribution of industry. What many of these areas want is not merely Birmingham tenants but industry to go with them. This demands positive planning and Government intervention, which has not so far been forthcoming. The restriction of I.D.C.s. is a negative form of planning which will not help to solve this problem and persuade these areas to take Birmingham people and provide them with work.
These are some of the problems, There is also the problem of finance. I wonder whether the Minister is now prepared to reconsider the financial provisions of the 1954 Act. They are quite inadequate today. When it repairs a house, giving it first aid or other substantial repairs, it costs Birmingham today on average about £400 per dwelling.

Mr. V. Yates: The actual figure is £390.

Mr. Silverman: Obviously, that must go on so long as Birmingham cannot build sufficient houses. It is obvious that in these circumstances the provisions of the 1954 Act are inadequate to meet the burden incurred by the local authority.
Another problem was raised by the hon. Member for Selly Oak—labour. There is the question of offices in Birmingham. I agre that too many offices are being built, perhaps more than the city needs. It is probable that the planning authority, with its present powers, cannot do anything about that. So far as I understand it,


it has no power to consider the question of the labour force. It is able simply to consider what may be a suitable use for the area. However, the Government ought seriously to consider the matter. They should consider whether by some form of licensing or other restriction in certain areas where there is an acute shortage of building labour something can be done to deal with the problem.

Mr. Gurden: Is it not true that the quinquennial plan submitted by the local authority is usually accepted by the Government? I do not think any Government can be blamed for the plans which Birmingham puts forward.

Mr. Denis Howell: Free enterprise!

Mr. Silverman: The quinquennial plan is based upon the suitability of land and sites for certain purposes. The planning authority has certain limited powers. If it had suitable powers, I would say that so many offices should not be built.
But that is not the point. The point is that something should be done by the Minister, perhaps in consultation with the local authority, to ensure that labour is diverted to the purpose for which it is needed primarily at present, and that is housing. I hope the Minister will tell us whether he has something in mind on those lines.
These are practical things which can be done to assist Birmingham. I hope the Minister will make a helpful announcement about his intentions.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It may well be that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) have suggested, there is too much office building going on in the centre of Birmingham. But I hope that it will not be deduced from this that the reconstruction of the centre of the city ought to be retarded. Maybe plans ought to be changed towards the building of flats in the centre. What I wish to make clear is that ten years ago the centre of Birmingham was one of the meanest centres of a city of its size and wealth to be found in Western Europe, and that it is highly desirable that that should be corrected. Great credit is due to the local authority, which has set

in train steps to correct it on such an imaginative scale during recent years.
This has been a most useful debate so far, and I hope that it will continue to be when the Parliamentary Secretary replies. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for initiating it. It is important to bring home the extraordinary dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with their share of the responsibility for the Birmingham housing problem. The whole problem has been stuck in a groove and has not moved forward for years. Long before the Parliamentary Secretary got to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) was in his previous incarnation at the Treasury, the problem existed in very much its present form, and practically nothing has advanced since then.
We were talking about a new town. Nothing has been done about that. We had this diversion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) pointed out—Whether it was a desirable or undesirable diversion—of the Wythall plan. It was certainly a diversion, but it merely distracted people's attention for a year—

Mr. Denis Howell: It was the biggest red herring ever.

Mr. Jenkins: —and achieved no practical result at all. It is absolutely clear that the Government must get on with the announcement of concrete plans—I should have thought two new towns, at least, at the earliest possible moment, together with other supplementary measures—if this problem is to be solved.
The problem of Birmingham's housing is the problem of housing in a boom city. Birmingham is a boom city, and we all hope it will continue to be, though perhaps in a more controlled form than it has been up to now. One of the difficulties which the local authority faces is that, in our extraordinarily antiquated and restrictive system of local government finance, a local authority, when dealing with housing or other problems, does not get the financial benefit which might be expected from being a boom


city. If we had a rather more widely-based system of local government finance, the mere fact of being a boom city would give the local authority more room for financial manœuvre, which would be a great advantage. That is not so as things exist at present.
In a financial sense, the advantages of being a boom city are hardly present at all to the Birmingham City Council. From the financial aspect, there is a special responsibility on the Government, but there is also from the geographical point of view, and unless the Government are in the position to announce tonight on what front we are now to advance—since the Wythall front has been proved to be only a diversion and a dangerous time-wasting diversion at that—we shall be fully entitled to draw the conclusion that the Government are merely playing with the problem of Birmingham's housing, as, it seems to me, they have been for six or seven years without announcing any decisions which are of any help from the point of view of a hard-pressed local authority, trying to deal with an extremely important and extremely human problem.

10.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): There is no doubt of the importance of the matter which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has raised this evening. Birmingham's housing problem is undoubtedly a very grave one, and it has implications that reach far beyond the city's own boundaries. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the nature of the problem, its gravity and of the need for action.
The city has at least 45,000 slums to clear, and there is no dispute about that. We cannot estimate the rate at which houses become obsolete, but it is certain that a considerable number of houses do become obsolete each year. The hon. Member for Ladywood says that the city council has made its own estimate, and that he relies upon it, and, no doubt, it is the best estimate that can be made. In addition, there are many families lacking separate homes of their own, and I think the number is estimated by the

city council at 30,000. For the whole of the conurbation, the figure may well be doubled. We also know that there are 49,000 people on the waiting list.
A good deal has been achieved since the end of the war. About 50,000 new houses have been built, a quarter of them by private enterprise. Many unfit houses have been demolished, and many more—about 20,000—have been renovated to give them a further life of up to twenty-five years. No one doubts that Birmingham has done a good job in that respect. At present, about 2,000 houses a year are being renovated, and I understand that it is proposed to increase that figure to 3,000 a year. In addition, since the passing of the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, the Ministry has approved nearly 14,000 standard grant applications for council-owned houses, and, for their part, the city council has approved nearly 2,700 standard grants for private owners since 1959, and is also approving discretionary grants at the rate of 750 to 800 a year. I do not think the impression should be given by this debate that nothing is being done by Birmingham in this regard.
By itself this of course is not enough. We all want to see Birmingham building more houses. I can assure hon. Members that we give all possible encouragement to Birmingham to build as fast and as much as possible. This year the Council asked for a programme of 3,000 houses and we approved an allocation of 2,500. That does not mean that we wanted to out the programme and I think that hon. Members will be perfectly aware of that. It was a recognition of the realities of the situation and, as was said by the hon. Member for Ladywood, there are too many houses in the pipeline. The implications of that were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). We are concerned about the number of houses which are completed and it does not help to put more in the pipeline than can be built.
We know that the number of houses which have been completed over the past five years or so has been only about 2,000 a year. In answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Ladywood on 13th March my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear that he is quite prepared to reconsider the allocation if the progress


improves and if it looks as though the figure of 2,500 houses, the present allocation, could be increased.
I will come a little later to the question of the finance of overspill and town development which is a separate problem, but regarding the finance of the houses inside Birmingham, under the Housing Act of 1961 the council expects to qualify for the higher subsidy of £24. Hitherto it has been receiving the subsidy of £22 1s. for slum clearance for the greater part of its building and that also will now be £24. In 1960–61 the Council received £1,569,691 in Exchequer contributions and the rate fund contribution was £1,670,863. I think that on those figures it is clear that the Exchequer is making a pretty substantial contribution.
Another way to increase the stability and health of the housing revenue account would be to review the rent policy from time to time. This is entirely a matter for the Council but it is a fact that for post-war houses the average rent is 2·1 times the gross value and for pre-war houses only 1·66 times the gross value. I think it could be argued that these rents might be higher. It has been said that Birmingham is a prosperous city, in the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) it is a "boom city". So perhaps something might be done in that direction. Regarding housing in Birmingham it is not finance nor the Ministry which is standing in the way—

Mr. J. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman deal specifically with the question of the 1954 grants for repairing houses?

Mr. Rippon: I will deal with that. Regarding patching, it is estimated that about £300 a house is being spent—that is my figure and not £390 mentioned by the hon. Member for Ladywood, but I may be open to correction about that—

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member is open to correction on many points.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that the rents for municipal houses in Birmingham are too low?

Mr. Rippon: It is of course a matter for the council, but there is certainly room for a review from time to time. But let me please deal with the question

put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman).

Mr. Denis Howell: The Parliamentary Secretary raised the point.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member for Aston interrupted me to ask that I should deal with the specific point and I will come back to the other arguments later, if hon. Members are particularly anxious that I should do so.
Concerning patching, the basic cost is £300—or £390 if the hon. Member for Ladywood insists on his figure—plus £12 a year maintenance. The Exchequer contribution towards that amounts to half the loan charges for purchase for as many years as the house is used for housing purposes plus £3 a year for 15 years. In answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Ladywood we have indicated that the total contribution is between £120,000 and £160,000 a year over a good many years.
What I am suggesting is that it is not finance nor the Ministry that is standing in Birmingham's way. Certainly we want not 2,000 houses a year but something far nearer or even better than 3,500 a year if we are to make real progress. Those houses would not necessarily be built by Birmingham alone. They would also be built in overspill schemes.
As hon. Members have pointed out, one of the main reasons why more houses are not being built is shortage of labour. I understand that the city council is looking at ways of getting better output, particularly by employing new methods of construction which make less demand on the available building force. I appreciate that that is a difficult problem in the city at present. Even if there were labour available, that would not alter the fundamental difficulty of shortage of land.

Mr. V. Yates: By rejecting the Wythall scheme the Minister has made it much more difficult for the city to integrate the labour force. It would have assisted the labour position if that scheme had been approved, for it would have made it easier to deal with the labour in the area.

Mr. Rippon: As the situation stands the hon. Member is quite right when he says that building 2,000 or 2,500 houses a year on land which is available for housing within its boundaries


could be done by Birmingham only until about 1967. What is inevitable is that many Birmingham people, offices and factories will have to be moved out of the city. In this respect Birmingham shares its longer-term problem with the rest of the west Midlands conurbation. It has been estimated that during the next twenty years land to provide for about 180,000 houses for overspill population from Birmingham and the Black Country will be needed beyond the green belt.
As my right hon. Friend indicated to the hon. Member for Ladywood in answer to another of his Questions, that is the real problem. Facing it could have been postponed only by allowing the scheme for housing at Wythall in the Worcestershire and Warwickshire parts of the green belt. The fact that the Wythall scheme went to a public inquiry meant of course that my right hon. Friend could not regard the matter as prejudged. The City of Birmingham must have known perfectly well that the matter was subject to public inquiry and that the Minister would have to act on the evidence presented to that inquiry. It was certainly never contemplated that Birmingham would sit back and do nothing more while waiting for a decision on the Wythall scheme.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am inclined to agree very much with what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying, but in that case why did the Ministry propose to have this building at Wythall? Why did the Ministry cause one year to be wasted?

Mr. Rippon: What the Ministry proposed was that the matter should be considered at a public inquiry. That is what happened and everyone must know that. At the moment, houses for overspill are being built outside the city at the rate of 300 or 400 a year. That manifestly is hopelessly inadequate and compares very unfavourably with the experience of London County Council. No one doubts that it is a difficult business to negotiate overspill schemes. I do not always agree with everything that London County Council does, but no one can dispute that it made a tremendous effort to solve some of London's housing problems by tackling the overspill problem very energetically.

It may be that Birmingham could learn something from that experience.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should realise that that was done at some considerable expense to the ratepayers and that the Conservative minority on the L.C.C. is always attacking the Labour majority for the level of the rates.

Mr. Rippon: It is quite untrue to say that Conservatives on the London County Council ever attacked the majority party for what it was doing about overspill. I should have thought that the people of Birmingham could have done something similar. If the problem is to be faced, we must face some of the financial implications.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's party did not do so on the L.C.C.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) keeps on saying that we did not do so on the London County Council. He knows that that is untrue, because he is usually well-informed.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am. I recollect reading articles by the hon. Member attacking the London County Council for electoral purposes for its level of rates. He must have known that one of the reasons for the rates was the cost of overspill negotiations.

Mr. Rippon: I certainly did that. I also explained, in those articles, where I would make the cuts, and none of them were on overspill. That, however, is by the way. We are discussing how to tackle this great problem in Birmingham. There is no doubt that we must have major expansion beyond the green belt. We would have needed that whatever happened about Wythall or anywhere else.
As the House knows, we are investigating the possibility of building the new town at Dawley. It would be a great surprise to everyone if I were to announce a decision on this here tonight. Certainly, my right hon. Friend will announce the result as soon as he can. We are certainly aware of the urgency. Town expansion schemes are being discussed at Redditch, Worcester, Daventry and Droitwich. There is more than one


party to these negotiations. We can simply press on with them as fast as we can.
Concerning subsidy in relation to overspill, if the council had built at Wythall it would have got the £24 subsidy for general needs plus any special subsidies that might have arisen. If the council works under the Town Development Act, subsidies are payable to the receiving authority. The Exchequer subsidy is now £28 plus the various supplementary subsidies if necessary.
The hon. Member for Ladywood said that Birmingham would have to pay about £12 per annum as a minimum. That is not true. It applies only if all the workers transferring came from Birmingham's list of tenants. If, as is the case with the schemes for Redditch, Worcester and Daventry, the scheme involves a substantial transfer of industry and, hence, a proportion of workers transferred who are not on the list for housing need in Birmingham, the Exchequer and Birmingham share the additional £12 for fifteen years, the Exchequer paying the £12 and recovering half from Birmingham.
There is also an Exchequer grant payable to the receiving authority of 50 per cent. of the cost of works of main drainage and water supply attributable to overspill. The minimum cost to Birmingham is £6 a house for fifteen years. It may be that there is need for a more generous approach, as some hon. Members have pointed out, in this regard if schemes are to be approved.
We have to bear in mind that to be successful, these schemes must depend upon co-operation between the City of

Birmingham and the other local authorities affected. They need time to consider all the implications. We for our part, however, are certainly trying to press ahead with the negotiations as quickly as we can and to help to speed them up. As the hon. Member knows, the Worcestershire and Warwickshire County Councils were strongly opposed to the development proposed at Wythall. Now that that issue has been settled, however, I am sure that these counties should do everything in their power to help in ensuring that Birmingham's needs are met elsewhere. They certainly should do so. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said about that.
Tonight, I have mentioned only the schemes that look most promising. There may well be others. We shall have to consider Birmingham's needs in relation to the long-term needs of the whole of the West Midlands. It is a formidable problem, but officers of the Ministry are engaged in conducting a survey with the planning officers of the counties concerned to discuss what land may be made available for this purpose. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend, for his part, will do everything he can to speed up the negotiations and help to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. Much will also depend, however, upon the attitude of the Birmingham City Council and on its initiative and vigour in bringing these matters to a successful conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.